Work Permits: Special Skills Applicants

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish details of requirements governing the admission to the United Kingdom of special skills applicants.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, details of a pilot scheme to attract people of outstanding ability from abroad to enter the country to seek work, rather than a prospective employer applying on their behalf, were published in the Pre-Budget Report. The criteria will enable people with PhD or equivalent level qualifications or not less than five years' experience at a senior level to apply for their own work permit to seek work.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has the Minister yet tried to use the system, as I have? I put myself into the position of an applicant and checked the Overseas Labour Service website, for which the noble Baroness is responsible. Although it is updated and can provide some information, it fails because it refers the user to the Home Office website, which has not been updated for months, despite promises to the contrary. It holds no details as regards special skills. Furthermore, does the Minister realise that the respective telephone helplines for these services each refer the caller to the other line? Although I have 30 pages of printout from the website, I still have not been able to track down the necessary information. For years, countries such as Australia and Canada have operated good, co-ordinated systems of this kind. Given that, when can we expect to see a co-ordinated system put in place here?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has had so much trouble with this. I have to admit that I have not tried out our website, but I am a little puzzled because the pilot scheme is not due to be launched until the turn of the year. Given that, I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness has been looking for on the website. However, I agree that we need to co-ordinate the activities of the DfEE on work permits with what is being done by the Home Office in another pilot project, which is also about to be launched. I shall certainly look into the matter. Once the scheme has been established in the new year, there should be joined-up website provision.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government ensure that the criteria mentioned by the Minister will be made known to non-British citizens already staying in this country? I refer, for example, to asylum seekers. Furthermore, will the Government use this requirement for skilled workers as another means of facilitating the reunion of families, some of whose members are already living here?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is not the purpose of the scheme. It has nothing to do with asylum seekers and the requirements put in place for them. This scheme seeks to recruit a relatively small number of people with special skills. We are discussing hundreds of positions rather than thousands. Those positions need to be filled by extremely highly qualified people. They will work in areas where we are experiencing skills shortages. However, that is not the primary purpose of the scheme. Some of the suitable applicants will not want to work for one employer. It is for that reason that the normal route to acquire a work permit, namely, that of an employer securing a work permit for a new employee, is not appropriate. The scheme aims to attract people with very high levels of qualifications and skills who want to build up a portfolio of different jobs.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, does this mean that the Minister does not hope for an influx into the teaching profession through this new skills initiative?

Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, the scheme is not designed primarily for those coming into the teaching profession. It may well be that some of those who come here through the scheme will work at senior levels in our universities. They may want to combine consultancy with research and possibly some higher education teaching. However, this scheme is not aimed at schoolteachers.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that a good deal of direct recruitment from abroad is currently being carried out to secure teachers for our schools. Indeed, the newspapers have reported that at least one school has a predominance of teaching staff who have been directly recruited from abroad. What programmes are in place to ensure that such teachers are competent and fully conversant with the system of education in this country?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think that the question put by the noble Baroness moves rather wide of that which has been set down on the Order Paper, which concerns work permits for a quite different group of people. However, it is important to ensure that, when we employ teachers from abroad, they should be fully qualified to teach in our schools. Before recruiting, we take into account the present qualifications of potential staff, along with the requirement for fluent English. All this is done before any teacher is appointed.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at present there is a surplus of general practitioners in Australia, whereas in this country the National Health Service is desperately short of them? Is not this a typical example of the kind of person who should be encouraged to come over here?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. The noble Baroness has cited a good example. Highly qualified people in the medical professions, in particular those with postgraduate qualifications, may be able to establish themselves quickly over here. However, I should point out that we are training a substantial number of additional medical students to try to meet the shortfall in the number of doctors working in NHS hospitals and in general practice.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will applicants be fast-tracked through the Home Office procedures? As someone who, in the past, has had to recruit people from abroad, I experienced considerable problems coping with Home Office procedures, particularly in regard to people from eastern Europe. Can the Minister assure us that in future highly-qualified PhDs will be processed quite quickly?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question. Such a pilot scheme requires the DfEE to work closely with the Home Office to ensure that, when an overseas application is received, there are proper fast-track arrangements and that immigration procedures do not stand in the way.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister give full details of where such skill shortages in the UK are to be found?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I refer the noble Baroness to the reports of the National Skills Task Force. I shall be happy to ensure that she receives copies of them.

EU "Everything but Arms" Initiative

Baroness Young: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have undertaken any assessment of the impact on ACP producers of rice, sugar, rum and bananas of the European Commission's "Everything but Arms" initiative, which seeks to extend duty and quota free access to the European Union market to 48 Least Developed Countries.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the proposal concerns the treatment of some 13,600 products from the 48 least developed countries in the world, 39 of which are also ACP countries. The European Commission's proposals should benefit these ACP countries and their exports, as well as the nine LDCs that are not ACP countries.
	The Commission has recognised the sensitive nature of three products--rice, bananas and sugar--by proposing that duty-free access for them should be phased in progressively over three years. At the request of member states, including the UK, the Commission is currently looking at the various impacts that the proposals could have. Discussions are continuing in Brussels. The Government have launched their own written and electronic consultation and are producing their own analysis. The Government support the proposal. The ACP countries have also welcomed it, while calling for its impact to be studied.

Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not have the usual courtesy to thank him for that Answer. It is, if I may say so, very complacent about an extremely serious situation for the countries of the Caribbean. If those countries are unable to export their basic commodities, they will turn to drugs. The ACP countries signed the Cotonou agreement in July, under which the transitional period would extend until 2008. The new initiative overrides that, thus breaking a freely entered into negotiated agreement. Does the Minister think that this is the right way to proceed?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think my Answer was at all complacent. We are well aware of the great importance of these proposals to all the people affected--not only Caribbean producers, but farmers and processors in this country and in the LDCs involved. It is important to realise that we are talking about countries with an average income per head of 200 dollars a year. That level of income makes even the Caribbean countries look very wealthy. I am not at all complacent. The Government will take account of all interests in their response. I do not agree that it is obvious what the impact will be. It depends critically on the supply response from the LDCs, which is not at all clear given that they are net importers of sugar. As to the final point raised by the noble Baroness in regard to the Cotonou agreement, I am sure she is well aware that in Article 37(9) it is anticipated that by 2000 the Community will start a process which, by 2005 at the latest, will allow duty-free access for essentially all products from all LDCs, building on the level of existing trade provisions of the fourth ACP-EC convention. That was anticipated in the agreement.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, what plans are there to encourage ACP farmers to diversify into non-drug-related crops?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's position is clear. We shall await the outcome of the impact studies and the action taken as a result. We shall then look at the consequences which flow from that and decide what action should be taken.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the British-Caribbean Parliamentary Group. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the effect of the proposals on the Caribbean. Has he seen the comments of the Guyanan Foreign Minister, who says that the proposals are virtually a knock-out blow which Guyana cannot sustain? If the proposals go through, it will effectively become impossible for Guyana to export rice, sugar and rum. As those commodities account for 44 per cent of Guyana's total exports, this will force Guyana into becoming one of the poorest countries in the world. Can my noble friend give some assurance that the interests of the Caribbean will be properly looked after?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that consideration of the interests of the Caribbean islands is foremost in the Government's mind. May I also remind my noble friend of the point I made in my original Answer. The impact of this will critically depend on what the supply response is from these very poor countries, which, as I said, are themselves importers of sugar.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister surprised that I was surprised by his original Answer when he said that these new measures were welcomed by the Caribbean countries? That is not at all the situation. I back up entirely what his noble friend Lord Faulkner said. Is not the Minister aware of the very serious situation facing the Caribbean countries in regard to their primary products of bananas, sugar, rice and rum, which will be devastated by the "Everything but Arms" initiative? It will also have an effect on sugar beet producers in this country. Is he really not aware of the existing situation?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I referred to the ACP countries, which are spread far wider than the Caribbean islands and include many other countries. They welcomed the proposal but wanted to see its impact. We are conscious of the potential impact on the Caribbean islands. We all know that they have suffered serious consequences on crops such as bananas--which are crucial to their economies--and obviously any further blow would be very serious. But I should emphasise that that will depend on the response to opening up the EU market to the other countries.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a report from the European Union Select Committee of this House on the workings of the WTO was somewhat critical of the ACP agreement, which spoke about "essentially all goods" in the context of free trade, and advocated that it should refer to "all goods"? That is the broad position taken in this House. Does my noble friend agree that the Cotonou agreement requires extensive consultation with those countries that are adversely affected? Does he further agree that that should include the Caribbean; and that there should be a willingness to negotiate transitional times and arrangements--not necessarily of long duration but in order to mitigate the worst effects?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords. Clearly, consultation is extremely important. I remind my noble friend that it is part of the proposals that they should be progressively phased in over three years. That takes in the point that he raised.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I always buy Commonwealth bananas, particularly Caribbean bananas? I hope that all other noble Lords do the same.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have to admit that I was not aware of that fact, but I am now better informed! I join with the noble Baroness in her appeal to other noble Lords.

Flood Losses

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recompense they propose to offer to those in flooded areas who have lost homes or businesses in cases where warnings from the Environment Agency and other public bodies have not been heeded.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, under current guidance local planning authorities are advised to consult the Environment Agency on any proposed development in the flood plain. LPAs need to consider the agency's advice alongside other material considerations in deciding whether planning consent should be given. The LPAs' decisions will in most cases turn on the agency's advice. They may, for example, refuse permission, or allow it to go ahead provided that the developer undertakes measures to mitigate flood risk as advised by the agency. However, current case law indicates that neither the agency nor the local planning authority is liable for individual losses suffered as a result of such a decision to grant planning consent.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, following yesterday's announcement that she has become a Privy Counsellor.
	I declare an interest in this Question as a resident in the new Sussex archipelago! Is the Minister aware that, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister visited the capital city of West Sussex, Chichester, and warned its residents that, thanks to climate change, they could expect storms more frequently in the future? What is the Minister persuading the Government to do in order to ensure that the Environment Agency has the resources to deal with this huge challenge? Does it have the money and the staff? What can be done to ensure that bureaucratic delays are broken? At present, a flood protection scheme that has been designed and improved is often delayed for years before being implemented.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations.
	I recognise the deep distress that has been caused to a large number of people by the recent flooding and their concern for the future. We obviously need a co-ordinated response. We have already announced more immediate help for local authorities dealing with the aftermath of flooding and more resources to ensure that flood defences are strengthened where appropriate. We shall also have to examine the effects of recent flooding on existing local defences to see whether any work needs to be undertaken. Equally, looking ahead and recognising the possibility of climate change creating more of these situations, we need to strengthen guidance to local planning authorities on developments in the flood plain and make sure that improved information about flood risk is available. We are taking action on all those fronts.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support my noble friend in his concern. I declare an interest as I live in the flood plain. Is the Minister aware that everyone living in and around Lewes knew perfectly well that there could be flooding and were waiting for it to happen? I live between the Ouse and the Winterbourne, both of which flood regularly. Is the Minister further aware that planning permission was given to build 20 houses on the flood plain in what was the old cattle market? Is the Minister further aware that the lock gates on the Ouse were opened to save Uckfield with the result that Lewes was absolutely inundated? Does the Minister agree that there must be some form of government control?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware of a great deal of what the noble Lord suggests. I understand that most of the development in Lewes that was flooded pre-dates the existing planning system, although two recent developments were involved. In both cases they were brownfield sites developed in accordance with current planning guidance. The Environment Agency's agreement to the development was subject to strict conditions being imposed, including the raising of floor levels. The Environment Agency believes that, even though there has been experience of serious flooding, where the agency's advice was taken flood damage was greatly reduced.
	The town of Lewes has not expanded outwards for 20 to 30 years because of the constraints imposed by the flood plain along the River Ouse and the South Downs area of outstanding national beauty--now a prospective national park. That presents real difficulties. I agree that it is important that we take into account the best possible advice on the risk of flooding and that we ensure that prospective buyers, for example, receive that advice. There are ways of achieving that.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister mentioned extra money for local authorities to help with the clearing up operations around the country. She will no doubt be aware that her noble friend Lord Whitty told the House some three or four weeks ago that the Bellwin formula will operate in such a situation. Has any of that money been applied for by local authorities; and what is the contingency for money that may need to spent?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we said that assistance under the Bellwin rules will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current flooding; that the rate of government support will increase from 85 per cent to 100 per cent; that valid claims will be settled within 15 working days; and that claims for advance payment can be made. From that, I deduce that if claims were made more than 15 days ago they will have been settled. If I am incorrect, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, returning to the Question posed by my noble friend, have the Government considered ways in which they will help compensate those who have lost their homes and businesses? Are they thinking of, for example, X amount of money for a house, Y amount of money for a business or a percentage of any successful insurance claim? What is the position? Secondly, in referring to the Bellwin agreement the Minister said that valid claims would be settled within 15 days. How quickly shall we know what is happening on the insurance side and what progress has been made some 22 days on from the consultation that the Government were to have with insurance companies?

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I can guarantee to answer that question within 15 days! As regards insurability, Treasury Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, my honourable friend Elliot Morley, have met insurance industry representatives. They received reassurance that the industry will deal with claims as quickly as possible; that it intends to continue providing flood insurance--which is extremely important; and that recent flooding should have little or no impact on premiums. It is also taking action in particular areas--for example, I believe, by pro-actively contacting potential claimants.
	As far as concerns the original Question, I believe that I have made clear in my responses that flooding has always been seen as an insurable risk; indeed, that has been the view of successive governments. Although the Government have put more money into both the compensation available to local authorities for the work that they have undertaken and into more flood defence work, we have not said that we shall compensate individuals for the damage they have suffered.

Electrical Appliances: Consumer Protection

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking, through the European Union, to prevent faulty domestic electrical appliances manufactured outside the European Union and carrying forged trade marks from entering the United Kingdom by means of the Single European Market.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, legislation is already in place which gives local authority trading standards departments adequate powers to remove unsafe products from the market, thus protecting UK consumers.
	As regards products carrying forged trade marks, there is an EC regulation applying in all countries of the European Union that allows trade mark owners to ask Customs authorities to seize counterfeit goods being imported from outside the Union. Customs authorities may also seize such goods on their own initiative. Where goods carrying a forged trade mark have entered the single European market, the criminal sanctions applying to counterfeiting activities within each member state are helpful. In the United Kingdom, the offences of distributing or selling counterfeit goods are relevant, and effective enforcement action is possible by trading standards departments, as well as by the police.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the particular case of a leading kettle manufacture, Strix Limited of Chester, whose position is being undermined by imports of faulty kettles from the People's Republic of China? Does my noble friend understand that this represents both a threat and a danger to consumers in Britain and in the European Union? Finally, what more can the Government do to remedy the situation; for example, what pressure can my noble friend bring to bear on the European Commission to ensure the safety of consumers throughout the European Union?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the DTI is most conscious of the particular problems faced by Strix Limited, which has a lion's share of the world market for safety cut-off dry boil controls for kettles. That is why the department has taken a good deal of action, both to help that company and to protect consumers in this country. We have made all the trading standards departments in the UK aware of the problem. The DTI's consumer safety newsletter has also featured this particular problem.
	Moreover, during an official visit to Beijing, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was able to arrange a meeting between executives of Strix Limited and a Chinese Government Minister. As a result of the action that we have taken, the Chinese authorities have now added electric kettles to the control list for commodity inspection, which makes kettles that are to be exported subject to official inspections. We have also made representations to the Chinese Government, both at an EU and at a UK level. However, we are not in a position to do one thing that the company has requested; namely, to ask the Chinese Government to shut down the Yong Heng thermostat factory in GuangDong, which is almost certainly the producer of many of these copy controls.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of these goods are freely available from street vendors and, indeed, from markets? Therefore, is he satisfied that trading standards departments throughout the country have sufficient force, funding and staff to deal with this kind of malpractice?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that I made it very clear that we have given a great deal of information on the matter to trading standards officers. In fact, it is only within the past four weeks that the first example has been found by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service in two kettles which fall within this category. Therefore, it is probably not true to say that these products are generally available. Indeed, I believe that there are sufficient resources available, given that trading standards departments have been alerted a number of times by the DTI.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the sooner the People's Republic of China becomes a full member of the World Trade Organisation the sooner we shall have a dispute settlement procedure through which it can be held to account if it breaks the necessary standards for proper trading in the international community?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it would be an advantage if the People's Republic of China were to become a member of the WTO. That would facilitate the enforcement of some of these agreements.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, contrary to what one might read endlessly in the Tory press and contrary to what one might hear occasionally from the Tory Benches, does the Minister agree that this is a classic example of a matter that would be best dealt with on a pan-European basis?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we should bear in mind two facts as regards this matter. First, the main cases in this respect have been found outside the UK; and, secondly, we have more power on a European basis to deal with the situation. Therefore, it is true that the matter is best dealt with on a European basis. However, as the DTI is responsible for British industry and its interests, we are taking the matter most seriously.

Lord Elton: My Lords contrary to the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the burden of this battle actually rests with very hard-pressed local trading standards authorities and their officers, who are constantly at risk in the boot sales and open markets where they have to enforce the law. Therefore, should not the emphasis be on exerting pressure on the country of origin, when it is known? Indeed, it is not only China that supplies such products. Can the Minister tell us how we can pursue the matter with suppliers of counterfeit patent documents when the country of origin is known?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the trading standards authorities are, of course, the first point of call in terms of alerting people to these problems. However, as to the question of actually taking action, which, I believe, was the point behind the previous question, that is best pursued on a European level, especially in circumstances where the main offenders have been found to be in other European countries.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Rural White Paper.

Disqualifications Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 1 [Disqualification for certain offices which may be held by members of the Northern Ireland Assembly]:

Lord Rogan: moved the amendment:
	Page 1, line 14, at end insert (", or
	(e) be nominated as a chairman or deputy chairman of an ad hoc committee,")

Lord Rogan: My Lords, at the outset, I freely admit that this amendment would have no effect on the Bill in its current form. Indeed, if the Minister were now to give a clear assurance to the House that the Government have no intention of reintroducing Report stage Clause 1 in another place, I would gladly withdraw my amendment and sit down. However, if the Government are minded to reintroduce what was Clause 1, then this amendment would have an effect, a very important effect.
	My amendment would prevent persons holding a "disqualifying office" from being nominated as a chairman or deputy chairman of an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, it would prohibit a Minister of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or a committee chairman or deputy chairman of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland, being nominated as a chairman or deputy chairman of an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	Both in Committee and on Report the Government have shown that they can be persuaded. They were persuaded on points regarding the policing board, committees of the Republic of Ireland legislature and the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. I am optimistic that the Government will be persuaded again. An amendment was offered in Committee to add the presiding officer and the deputy presiding officer to the list of positions to which a holder of "disqualifying office" could not be appointed. The Government rejected the amendment on the grounds that the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer have no role in relation to the initiation of policy or policy development.
	Again on Report the Government rejected an amendment to add the presiding officer to the list of positions to which a holder of a disqualifying office could not be appointed. Will the Minister confirm that by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 the presiding officer must be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission? Will the Minister also confirm that the holder of a disqualifying office is barred from being the presiding officer because the presiding officer must be in the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission?
	Of course, we must consider this amendment on the assumption that the Report stage Clause 1 will be reintroduced in another place. As the Bill stands, no holder of a disqualifying office can even sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	At Committee stage of this Bill and again on Report, ad hoc committees were rejected on the basis that they have no statutory role in the development of policy. But is it necessary to have a statutory role in the development of policy in order to have a role in the development of policy? I think not. It is quite possible to have a role in policy development without that role being statutory. Thus, ad hoc committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly have a role in the development of policy.
	The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 came before this House on Thursday, the second of this month. The issue of flags was discussed in a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the regulations were brought forward. It was an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly in which the issue of flags was discussed. Does the Minister believe that it would have been prudent for a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland or a holder of any other disqualifying office to have been a chair or deputy chair of that committee? Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable to have a Minister of the Government of the Republic of Ireland involved in deciding where the national flag should, or should not, be flown in any part of the United Kingdom?
	The Government have conceded that a chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee would have potential conflict of interests with the holder of a disqualifying office. They should also concede that the same potential conflict of interests would arise with a chair or deputy chair in an ad hoc committee.
	In urging the Government to accept this amendment I also urge them not to reintroduce the clause removed on Report. I would be more than happy for the Government to refuse to accept this amendment if they give an undertaking that they will not reintroduce the removed clause in another place. Something that was not part of the Belfast agreement and demanded in the agreement should never have been introduced by the Government at the request of Sinn Fein. When I refer to the "request of Sinn Fein" I do so in the same vein as Sinn Fein refers to "discouraging" young Catholics from becoming members of the police service in Northern Ireland and that is, let it be noted, post the police Bill.
	Sinn Fein/IRA has for many years discouraged--and still does--young Catholics from participating in policing through murder, violence and intimidation. Now Sinn Fein requests a measure and the Government either place a Sinn Fein clause in the Bill as with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, or, as in the case of this Bill, the Government produce an entire Bill. Just as "discouragement" means intimidation for Sinn Fein/IRA, the Government appear to read a Sinn Fein request as an order.
	Surely this Government must learn, and must learn quickly, that the insatiable appetite of republicanism can never be satisfied. If the Government produce a piece of legislation which contains a specific Northern Ireland issue, or they produce a Bill with particular Northern Ireland aspects, they must not continue to consider only the views and wishes of Sinn Fein/IRA. Carrots alone do not maintain motivation unless interspersed with the occasional stick. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I raise what appears to me rather a substantial point. It seems that we are now discussing an amendment proposed to a clause which is not there or is part of a Bill which has been declared dead. Without Clause 1 the Bill no longer has any life or meaning. According to my understanding, Clause 1 was taken out on 20th November by your Lordships' House. Now the noble Lord, Lord Rogan--no blame attaches to him--has somehow,with considerable ingenuity, managed to persuade the Table Office to accept an amendment to a clause which has gone. He has properly expressed a wish that the Government in another place will not seek to replace Clause 1 in a Bill which is now effectively dead. He rightly fears--I certainly share his anxiety--that if the Government were to be so insensitive (that is the politest word I can think of) as to reintroduce the now dead Clause 1, they would revive the whole Bill and give it a fresh life in a quite indecent fashion which I do not think anyone could possibly welcome.
	I do not wish to speak about the merits of the amendment at this stage. The noble and learned Lord has a disagreeable responsibility in regard to the Bill. He has a rather difficult time of it these days and I have the utmost sympathy for him. I say sincerely that I always respect the patience, intelligence and courtesy with which he handles tricky and difficult situations. However, on this particular occasion he will have a lot of explaining to do with regard to what in this thoroughly undesirable Bill is now living and capable of meaning anything and whether he and his colleagues in another place intend to do the dreadful thing of reviving the corpse by giving the Bill its Clause 1, or its head, back again so that once again the wretched creature will be capable of breathing and of living.
	Before the merits of the noble Lord's reasonable and sensible amendment are gone into further, I do not think that it is too much to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will be kind enough to comment on the degree of animation which this ghastly corpse can expect to receive from his colleagues in the near future. I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that the Government have no such sinister intentions of restoring to life a Bill which never deserved anything other than total condemnation.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I had better intervene at this stage as the Minister did not intervene while my noble friend was speaking; otherwise he might bring the debate to a conclusion.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am advised that I am allowed to speak only once in this debate. Intervening in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I should make it clear that it is the Government's intention if the Bill do now pass to argue in another place that the former Clause 1 of the Bill should be reinstated. We stand by this Bill and intend to pursue this Bill. I speak by way of intervention rather than losing my right to speak.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I paid my very sincere tribute to him in the hope that he would be able to influence his honourable and right honourable friends elsewhere to emulate the virtues for which I have given him credit.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with temerity, I remind noble Lords that it is Third Reading. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that speaking once and intervening in the intervention of another speaker is stretching the point.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may resume my remarks. First, I deeply deplore the announcement that the noble and learned Lord made, although it came as no surprise. However, I shall return to that a little later.
	I hope that the Bill will remain dead and will not be revived. But if it were to be revived, then this amendment would be a valuable small addition to the Bill. Without the amendment, the incredible difficulties of dual loyalties--they are the reasons that the Bill is so potentially damaging--could be much worse. I therefore support the amendment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I deal with the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I have indicated the Government's intentions with regard to the former Clause 1 of the Bill.
	On the proposed amendment, I confirm that the presiding officer is a member of the Assembly Commission by virtue of Section 40(2)(a) of the 1998 Act. Clause 2(2) of this Bill prevents persons appointed as members of the commission from also holding the offices listed in that clause. This clause does not cover the presiding officer since he is not appointed but is a member of the commission by virtue of the 1998 Act.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to answer my question, which concerns me greatly. How is it possible for us now to debate an amendment to a clause which is no longer in the Bill?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the clause which is being amended is new Clause 1 of the present Bill. Therefore, there is a clause which can be amended. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, comes to my aid by nodding vigorously. Procedurally, there is no question but that the debate on the amendment can go forward. I believe that that view is confirmed by the Table Office and the learned Clerk. In terms of procedure it is perfectly possible to debate the amendment. As a matter of substance, it is right that the issue should be debated, it having been made clear by me on behalf of the Government that we shall argue in another place for the reintroduction of Clause 1.
	The amendment of the noble Lord seeks to prevent holders of disqualifying offices--those are the various offices mentioned in the present Clause 1--from being able to take up positions as chairmen or deputy chairmen of the Assembly ad hoc committee, as he said, to avoid conflicts of interest. We do not believe that those safeguards will be necessary in the selection of those offices. First, unlike statutory committees, ad hoc committees do not have the same role in the development of policy and legislation. Secondly, and more importantly, unlike the restricted offices included in the present Clause 1 of the Bill, ad hoc committee chairmen and deputy chairmen are not selected by the d'Hondt procedure and so are not automatically appointed. There is, therefore, room for discretion in making appointments. Candidates with existing offices in the Irish Parliament could be passed over if it were thought that they were unsuitable to be a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of the ad hoc committee. Consequently, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and await the Government's more considered response at a later date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, typically for this Bill, this is the last Third Reading of this Session. The Bill has been at the bottom of the legislative pile throughout its passage in this place. It was introduced into another place just before Christmas last year. Its Second Reading here was as late in July as it was possible to be. Committee and Report stages were both delayed; and Third Reading now comes at the end of the Session. That is amazing for a Bill which was presented to the Commons as so urgent that it had to be passed in two days--and that was in January.
	The Bill as it stands is meaningless. I doubt whether this House has ever sent such complete rubbish to another place. It is the sweepings of a Bill. It contains only consequential clauses but no operative clause. As it stands, its only effect would be to prevent Irish senators from sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which no one wishes to do.
	The Government's cover story about bringing Ireland into line with the Commonwealth, which it left voluntarily 50 years ago, was completely blown away in the course of our debates, revealing in stark clarity the central proposal of the Bill. That was itself demolished in this House, leaving these sweepings.
	No Member of Parliament from a Commonwealth country has ever sat in Westminster at the same time and no one is going to do so. No Member of Parliament from any other European Union country can sit in Westminster at the same time as being a member of his own parliament; and no one proposes that he should be able to do so. Sinn Fein/IRA want this Bill. It is not that they want to sit in two parliaments at once. We know that they do not accept the validity of the Westminster Parliament with respect to Northern Ireland. It is expressed sometimes as not wishing to take the Oath but it goes much deeper. It is a hostility to all our proceedings here. They do not want to sit in the Westminster Parliament and the Dail at the same time. They want to be able to claim to represent Northern Ireland constituencies in the Dail. That reason for wanting this Bill is not simply a contention from this side of the House. It is fully stated and documented Sinn Fein policy, as has been made clear in our debates.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on Report that such a claim to represent part of the United Kingdom in the Dail would be constitutionally wrong. I agree. That is what makes it extraordinary that the Government should want to make that possible. The noble and learned Lord speaks as though it were all a gesture of good will with no effective consequences. But, if passed in its original form, the Bill would provide heavy and sustained propaganda opportunities for Sinn Fein/IRA for the foreseeable future. It is not part of the Good Friday agreement. It has nothing to do with the new joint institutions for British-Irish co-operation which we have always supported and which followed on from that agreement. Worse than that, it is a one-way concession: it applies only to Irish citizens but not to British citizens.
	On Report, the noble and learned Lord gave us at some length details of the changes to the Irish constitution about which we all know. But he could not tell us that the Irish constitution would be changed to allow British citizens to sit in the Dail.
	In any event, the Bill as it originally stood was wrong in principle. No one can legally represent two United Kingdom constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons and, more to the point, they should not be able to represent two constituencies in different sovereign Parliaments at the same time.
	There have been suggestions that the Bill is part of a secret deal between the Government and Sinn Fein. Perhaps that is what the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms meant when he referred to it as part of the "choreography" of Northern Ireland. Further, it has been suggested that it resulted from the deal when the Prime Minister wrote his hand-written appeal to Northern Ireland electors to support the agreement at the time of the referendum. If that was so, in my view the Government need feel no compunction about it. The promises made at that time have been dishonoured root and branch by Sinn Fein, particularly in respect of decommissioning.
	In the course of our debates in this House we have shown the true nature of this Bill and its consequences. The House decided clearly that the Bill's central proposition was highly objectionable. Therefore, we are sending a husk of the original Bill to another place. They must confront the issues, which they were not able to do in January.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have consistently maintained that this Bill is worth while, that it is positive and that it is symbolic of a new era in the history of the United Kingdom and Ireland. We are seeking to allow Members of the Irish Parliament the opportunity to campaign and to take up seats in the United Kingdom legislatures in recognition of the extremely close and positive ties which exist between Britain and Ireland. Nevertheless, as the vote to drop the former Clause 1 demonstrated, it appears that many here do not agree that this new relationship is sufficiently important to warrant this Bill.
	The simple rationale for introducing the Bill nearly a year ago was, and still is, to recognise the advances made since the advent of the Good Friday agreement in the constitutional and political future of Northern Ireland and, in particular, the effect that that has had on our relationship with one other nation--Ireland.
	That relationship was proved in the negotiations which resulted in the Belfast agreement. It was the British and Irish Governments working together with the parties that made it possible to reach agreement. Throughout the crucial and difficult process which led to the Belfast agreement, and again subsequently when we experienced setbacks in the full implementation of the agreement, the Irish Government were key players in bringing the political process back on track, sometimes at potential cost and in the face of personal tragedy.
	The historic agreement is a pact not only between the Northern Ireland parties and the British Government, but also between the Irish and British Governments and with the people of Northern Ireland. Quite simply, it would not have been possible to get this far without the contribution of the Irish Government or, indeed, the support of the Irish people, as shown in the referendum on the Belfast agreement.
	Our relationship with Ireland has been strengthened not only by the Good Friday agreement, but by the British-Irish agreement, which replaced the Anglo-Irish agreement. Under this new agreement, the Irish Government fulfilled their commitment to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. With the endorsement of over 94 per cent of the Irish voting public, the Irish Government removed the territorial claim over Northern Ireland which had existed as a central principle of the Irish constitution for 80 years.
	The Irish Government and the Irish people showed that they accepted and supported the principle of consent that Northern Ireland would remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority within Northern Ireland wished it to be so; and, crucially, they recognised the separateness of Northern Ireland from Ireland.
	We must not forget that these developments have accompanied huge progress in Northern Ireland. For the first time in 30 years the main paramilitary groups are on ceasefire. Violence, death and destruction are no longer a part of everyday life for the majority of people living in Northern Ireland. The strong economic growth there is higher than in most other regions of the United Kingdom, and there is rising employment, inward investment and an increase in living standards across the community.
	We have returned power to a devolved Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, placing responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of local representatives. They are rising to the challenge with enthusiasm, imagination and energy.
	All that has happened and is happening. The achievements are a matter of fact, not of interpretation. They came about only because the United Kingdom and Ireland were prepared to work together to bring peace and to lay a solid foundation for Northern Ireland's future. Of course, I am not saying that the current situation is perfect; we still have a long way to go. But we have travelled a long way already and at every step we have been supported by the Irish Government. I believe that this Bill gives modest recognition of that fact.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In the middle of his rather misplaced triumphal song, I ask him what evidence or expectation he has that any Irish citizen other than a member of Sinn Fein will make use of the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have no idea who will use the Bill. By way of argument, I am saying that the Bill recognises the strengthening relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Government. It does not give automatic rights to representation to Members; it simply makes it possible for the electorate to have a wider choice of candidates. In doing so, it extends the democratic principle.
	I finish by answering a question which has been asked throughout the debates in this House: who wants this Bill? The Government want it because they recognise all that the partnership with Ireland has brought in recent years. By the same token, the Irish Government support and welcome the Bill. For the reason that I gave earlier--the extension of the democratic principle--it is also generally supported by the nationalist population. The Bill is also welcomed by a number of the political parties in Northern Ireland, such as the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition.
	There is support for the Bill and there are good reasons to support it. I urge all those who want co-operation with the Irish Government and progress in Northern Ireland to support it.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]

Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is attending a family funeral in Northern Ireland, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.--(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 134 as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENT

1 Clause 4, page 6, line 25, leave out ("registered") and insert ("private").

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The Care Standards Act amends the definitions of residential care homes, nursing homes and registered children's homes to care homes, independent hospitals and private children's homes. In restating Section 24 of the Children Act, the Children (Leaving Care) Bill deploys at Sections 24(2)(d) and 24(2)(c) the existing definitions of such homes. It was introduced ahead of the Care Standards Bill.
	Amendments updating those references were made to the Children Act in the Care Standards Act at its Committee stage in order to avoid having to table amendments to the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. Those amendments were drafted on the reasonable assumption that the amendments to the Children Act made by the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would have become law first. In the event, that did not happen. Therefore, the amendments refer to new sections of the Children Act which did not exist at the time that the Care Standards Act obtained Royal Assent.
	As a consequence, the amendments have no effect. Therefore, we need to amend the Bill in order to bring into line the references to such homes and to remove the now incorrect amendments to the Care Standards Act. These amendments are technical and have no new policy implications. I commend them to the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.--(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

2 Clause 4, page 6, line 31, leave out from ("any") to second ("or") in line 32 and insert ("care home or independent hospital").

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.--(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

3 Clause 4, page 8, line 11, after ("full-time") insert ("further or").

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 6. This Bill is all about improving life chances for young people who have been in care. Education is the best way to do that--helping them into jobs, careers and a fulfilling and productive role in society. That is why the Bill is assiduous in creating duties to help with education and training even beyond the point at which young people leave care.
	The new duties for qualifying care leavers aged 18 and over specifically include a duty on councils to assist with education and training to the end of the agreed course, even if that takes a young person past the age of 21. The Bill has always backed that up with a new duty to provide vacation accommodation for care leavers in higher education. This was introduced because we were aware of cases where a young person who had left care was unable to take up a university place simply because he would not be able to find somewhere to live during vacations. That is why it applies to all care leavers, not just to those to whom the rest of the Bill applies.
	Since the Bill has been making its passage through Parliament, we have been made aware of the fact that vacation accommodation can be an issue for some further education students as well. For the most part, students take FE courses near to home, at their local school or college, studying from home. Those students do not have special accommodation needs during vacations and the amendments do not affect them.
	However there are some courses--agricultural, horticultural and some arts courses--which are run at residential colleges and those students are in the same position as many university students during vacations in needing to find alternative accommodation. So we have decided explicitly to extend the duty to provide vacation accommodation to care leavers who require it to cover these FE students as well.
	Amendment No. 6 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining "further education" for the purposes of this Bill and the intention is to define it in terms of the kind of residential FE courses which I have described. Amendment No. 4 adds the qualifier,
	"because his term time accommodation is not available to him then"
	to establish the reason why a student would need to call on that duty. Most students have the option open to them to return to their family home during vacations--an option which is not available to care leavers. These amendments are intended to create a more level playing field by making sure that care leavers are not left with nowhere to go during vacations. I commend the amendments to the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.--(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

4 Clause 4, page 8, line 12, after ("vacation") insert ("because his term-time accommodation is not available to him then").
	5 Page 8, line 14, leave out ("then") and insert ("during the vacation").
	6 Page 8, line 18, leave out (""full-time higher education"") and insert (""full-time", "further education", "higher education"").

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.--(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS

7 Clause 4, page 8, line 31, leave out ("registered") and insert ("private").
	8 Page 8, line 35, leave out from ("any") to ("or") in line 36 and insert ("care home or independent hospital").
	9 Page 8, line 44, at end insert--
	("( ) If subsection (1) comes into force before the commencement of section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000--
	(a) until that commencement, the references to a "private children's home" in sections 24(2)(c) and 24C(2)(a) of the 1989 Act as substituted by subsection (1) are to be read as references to a registered children's home; and
	(b) until that commencement, the references to any "care home or independent hospital" in sections 24(2)(d)(ii) and 24C(2)(c), as so substituted, are to be read as references to any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home,
	and paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 4 to the Care Standards Act 2000 (which amends section 24 of the 1989 Act) is repealed.").
	10 Clause 7, page 10, line 27, at end insert--
	("(5) In the Care Standards Act 2000, in Schedule 4 (minor and consequential amendments)--
	(a) in paragraph 14(4), the words ", as it has effect before the commencement of section 4 of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000"; and
	(b) paragraph 14(5) and (6),
	are repealed.").
	11 Clause 8, page 10, line 29, after ("from") insert ("section 7(5) and").

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 11.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 7 to 11.--(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

12 Clause 11, page 11, line 7, leave out subsection (10).

Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This amendment is simply the usual formality of removing the privilege amendment inserted as is customary into a Bill which starts its passage in your Lordships' House before being sent to another place. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.--(Lord Burlison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
	With the leave of the House, perhaps I may explain that due to unusual circumstances, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has only just received a copy of the Statement. Therefore, through the usual channels, we have agreed that my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton will first deal with the Commons amendments.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendments be now considered.--(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAVE DISAGREED, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO THE WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL BY THE COMMONS' DISAGREEMENT TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
	[The page and line refer to HL Bill 83 as first printed for the Lords]
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	14 Clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("supervision")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	14A Because the Commons believe that it is necessary to make clear the circumstances in which accommodation may be provided in approved premises under the arrangements in question.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. I was slightly indisposed. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said reasons.
	These amendments reverse the changes made on Report in your Lordships' House which called into question the ability to fund hostel accommodation and restricted the categories of those who could be accommodated in hostels

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be helpful to all of us if the noble Lord would tell us to which amendment he is speaking.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should have said that I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 14A.
	This is a small but important group of amendments that seeks to undo changes made in this House on Report that, perhaps inadvertently, did serious damage to local boards' ability to use hostels properly. I say that it was inadvertent because I do not think there is much, if anything, between us in terms of the policy. In moving Amendment No. 14 on Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, emphasised the importance of supervision in hostels. I agree absolutely with that.
	Clause 9(1) of the Bill, as amended in the Committee of this House, defines the provision of accommodation as being for persons granted bail in criminal proceedings or--and this is the important bit--for, or in connection with the supervision or rehabilitation of persons convicted of offences. The whole purpose of hostels is that they offer supervised accommodation. Everyone who is resident in a hostel is required to abide by the hostel rules, including a curfew and a ban on alcohol and non-prescription drugs. A resident breaking those rules is likely to lose his place, which in some circumstances can result in a removal to prison.
	My right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an assurance to the noble Baroness's right honourable friend in another place that all those in hostels are and would, under the Bill, be subject to supervision. I am happy to repeat that assurance now.
	I hope that I have explained clearly why the Government have brought forward these amendments and why those changes were made in another place. I trust that your Lordships will now be content with them.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 14A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I am grateful for the correspondence that we have received between the last stage of the Bill and today. I am grateful also to the Minister for putting on the record the effect which I wished to bring about with my amendments. It is not customary to criticise counsel in these matters. It is extraordinary that the reference to "approved premises" is not subsumed to mean "accommodation". I am not a lawyer so I am not competent to take issue on that point. We all agree that anyone who is referred to a bail hostel should be there under the supervision of the bail hostel staff.
	While we are putting matters on the record, it is important for the Minister to consider the following. I am particularly concerned about the staff of bail hostels and their legal position. From the debates that we have had on this Bill, my understanding is that the Home Secretary intends that accommodation will be made available for those who have spent convictions but who are, nevertheless, still deemed by the police, social services or the Home Secretary to be a risk to the community. They can be accommodated in bail hostels, and if they are so accommodated, they will be supervised.
	My understanding is that there will be no court authority for that. If someone like Robert Oliver, who has been referred to in much of the correspondence, were to go to a bail hostel when his period on licence is spent as well as his period in custody, he would have to go voluntarily. That would have to be on a voluntary basis because that is the only way in which such a person can take up accommodation in a bail hostel. However, if such a person were to go into a bail hostel voluntarily but then breached the rules of the hostel and breached the supervision, it would be almost impossible to do anything about it.
	It is important that we understand and protect the position of those who will supervise someone who is deemed to be dangerous. I specifically mention dangerous people because that is the example given to me by the Home Secretary in correspondence. He was particularly concerned about that category of person.
	As well as the issue of breaching the rules of the hostel, there is also the issue of something going wrong, of that person behaving in a manner that falls short of conditions for arrest but nevertheless presents a serious problem to the staff working in the hostel. As the Bill is in its final stages, it is important that we understand that their concerns are properly met by the arrangements made by the Home Secretary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is possible that the noble Baroness is intertwining two issues. I shall try to deal with the point. In breaching the conditions of supervision the person may commit another offence and could be picked up by the police if the whereabouts of that individual are known. The noble Baroness will recall from earlier debates that the reason why we were concerned about the effect of her amendment was that we felt that it undermined the ability within the service to find this type of accommodation. It was for that reason that we took the opportunity in another place to reverse the effect of her amendment.
	We have had extensive correspondence about that and I believe we now have a common understanding of the position. I believe that the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We require this type of accommodation and we must ensure that we can properly supervise people like Robert Oliver; otherwise it would be difficult to find the kind of accommodation where people like him could be properly and effectively supervised either because they are on licence or for their own protection. We are trying to ensure that such accommodation which will protect them, and more importantly the public, is in place.
	The amendments that we have put in place ensure that. In those circumstances they will be properly supervised. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness. I shall be happy to elucidate further and to provide further clarification. We accept that this is a serious matter.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has not answered any part of my point. For all intents and purposes, the individual is an innocent person. I notice that the Home Secretary has re-submitted the words "at any time", so it is a person who at any time in his life has been charged with and/or convicted of an offence. The offence may have been spent a long time ago; it may have been spent weeks, months or years ago, so the person, of their own volition or with some persuasion presumably from those who believe that he is a risk to the public--the social services, the Home Secretary or the police--may go into a bail hostel.
	It is important to know precisely what protection there is for the supervisors--the bail hostel staff--who have no legal locus whatever over such people. The Minister has said, as the measures of the Bill set out, that the staff will supervise them. If those people breach the rules of the hostel--for example, if they do not come in by 11 o'clock at night and the staff do not know where they are--what can the staff do? Such a matter is not a punishable offence. Those people are free people; they are deemed to be innocent people. They just happen to be people who once, some time ago, were charged with or were convicted of an offence which is long since spent. If they are dangerous, what protection is there for the bail hostel staff? They will have no protection because they will have no legal locus over such people in a hostel.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness to consider that she is extending the range of consideration and debate on this point. We cannot afford for these individuals to be at large within the community. Of course, we are bringing forward other proposals precisely to deal with the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness refers. This amendment seeks to ensure that dangerous offenders who are at liberty are protected and that the public are protected as well. Providing accommodation for them in a hostel is designed to do that. I hope that that answers the point. Clearly it is important that they are in supervised accommodation. I believe that the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness arose from her misunderstanding these matters. We have clarified that and we need to focus on the amendment rather than the other issues that the noble Baroness has brought in, understandable though those concerns are.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order, but with the leave of the House perhaps I can say that that does not answer my point. The hostel staff have listened to the debates. So far they have been dismayed and they will be dismayed further. I hope that the Minister will write to the staff and give them an assurance.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	15 Clause 5, page 3, line 25, leave out ("at any time")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	15A Because the Commons believe that it is appropriate to restrict in the manner proposed the category of person for whom the service in question may be provided under arrangements made by local probation boards.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	25 Clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert (", provided that no such direction shall merge the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	25A Because the Commons believe that it is unnecessary to impose the proposed restriction on the power to give directions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 25A.
	The amendment made by your Lordships is unnecessary because in the light of the result of consultation the Government do not intend to appoint a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation. It is not envisaged that any such appointment would be made without seeking the approval of the House in some form.
	I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere about the possibility that the posts of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation might be combined. We said that we would consider carefully the results of the consultation exercise, which we announced on 27th July and which concluded on 31st October, before reaching any decision about making a combined appointment. On 14th November I announced in a Written Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Orme, what the findings of the consultation exercise had been. It may be helpful to this House if I summarise them again. Full copies of all responses received have been laid in the Library.
	The consultation exercise ended on 31st October. A majority of those consulted favoured some change, establishing terms of reference for the inspection of joint working between the criminal justice agencies and the sharing of inspectors between the inspectorates. In contrast, only small minorities were in favour of the status quo or of the appointment of a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.
	During the consultation exercise a helpful scheme was put forward by HM Chief Inspectors of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates' courts, and the Probation and Prison Services to inspect practice across their boundaries systematically. That scheme has much to recommend it and the consultation exercise also suggests that it will command broad support. It is therefore the option that we propose to pursue along with the arrangements canvassed in the consultation exercise for bringing the work of the inspectorates closer together.
	That is a brief explanation of our position. But I hope the House will agree, following our full and open consultation exercise, and the fact that we listened carefully to the views put forward both in response to consultation and in your Lordships' House, that we have fairly moved forward.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 25A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, as I was the mover of the amendment which was carried on Report in this House, perhaps I may comment on the decision in another place.
	It comes as a great relief. The Home Secretary has given two reasons for his change of heart. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, explained that the consultation process, which was due to end on 31st October, showed overwhelmingly that there was little support for the idea of a joint inspectorate of prisons and probation. It is good to know that the results of the consultation paper, which were not expected anything like so early, have been brought forward and that the views of those who were consulted were broadly in line with those expressed in your Lordships' House.
	The second reason given by the Home Secretary, who spoke when this matter was debated on 14th November in the House of Commons, was that during the consultation exercise a helpful scheme was suggested by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates' courts, and the Probation and Prison Services, to inspect the practice across their boundaries systematically. Again, that reflects current practice. It is highly desirable that there should be joint inspectorates. Sir David Ramsbotham has said that repeatedly and there have been a number of joint inspections within the Prison Service in recent years. That was mentioned in our own debates.
	Therefore, welcome though that response is, it is no change whatever. It was good to hear it repeated by the Home Secretary as the second reason he gave. He had the generosity to say that strong opinions had been expressed in this House. But naturally, in the more adversarial setting of the House of Commons, he did not want there to be any hint of a climbdown so those were the reasons given. Nevertheless, this is a substantial improvement. It is fair to say that there are still concerns in the Probation Service--my noble friend Lady Blatch may have something to say about that--so it is by no means a perfect outcome. However, it is a great relief compared with what might have been and what was in the Bill as it stood before the action taken by your Lordships' House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as a Minister formerly responsible at one stage both for the Prison Service Inspectorate and for the Probation Inspectorate, I echo what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said about the great relief felt in both services and by those who had knowledge of them at the decision the Government have taken, whatever reasons they give for it.
	I pay tribute to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Windlesham for resisting the provision and thank him for his contribution in persuading the Government of what is a far better policy than that on which they originally embarked.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, from these Benches I repeat our relief at the outcome. The original suggestion was widely resisted by probation officers, which is why the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, who is bishop to prisons, has been involved in the progress of this Bill.
	We certainly need to tackle crime. But we believe that is best done by working with young people to give them a sense of belonging to society and by strengthening their values and moral sense. That is best done, wherever possible, outside prisons. Therefore I speak on behalf of the integrity of the Probation Service in its own right and without seeing it as part of the prison establishment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate. The integrity of each service is important, and the Government have gone a long way to see that that will be established from the top.
	Nevertheless, no doubt we shall all reserve judgment until we have seen the final document which will set out the practical details of how the inspection service will work, co-operatively where it makes sense, but distinctly where it is important that they are, although within the criminal justice system, distinct services pursuing different practices. We shall therefore wait for the final document. However, on behalf of the services, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Windlesham who has worked so hard on this, I accept the improvements made so far.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	39 Clause 18, page 8, line 28, leave out ("(other than a chief probation officer)")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	39A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A.
	In moving this amendment, it may be helpful to the House if I begin with a brief word about the procedure to be followed. Grouped with this amendment is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which asks the House to reject the Commons reason and to insist on the original amendment which was carried on Report in this House.
	When I have finished speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will speak to his amendment. The debate will then take place on that amendment and, at the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will decide whether or not to press his amendment. I hope that, by then, I will have convinced him to withdraw it and that the Commons reason will be accepted. However, I should make clear what will happen if the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, decides to press his amendment.
	If the noble Lord's amendment is carried, the Commons reason will fall and the House will have decided to insist on the original Amendment No. 39 made on Report. If, on the other hand, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is defeated, the implication is that the House will then agree to the Commons reason. Thus, I expect there to be only one Division; and on that vote, in simple terms, a vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is a vote for insistence; and a vote against his amendment is a vote for the Commons reasons for non-insistence. I hope that explanation has been helpful to your Lordships' House.
	This group of amendments deals with the appointment of chief officers. At Report stage, your Lordships changed the arrangements so as to make chief officers appointable by local boards with the approval of the Secretary of State rather than by the Secretary of State. The other place restored the original provisions of the Bill, subject to amendments to tidy up the drafting and to reflect the change of description from "local board" to "local probation board", which was made by your Lordships and accepted by the other place. The government amendments invite your Lordships now to agree with the Commons, subject to the significant protection of local interests inserted by government Amendment No. 121B, which I shall describe in detail in a few moments. Amendment No. 121C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would maintain the disagreement.
	At earlier stages of the Bill, your Lordships clearly made your views known on the appointment of chief officers. You invited the other place to reconsider the matter. They have done so and have returned the measures for further consideration by your Lordships. While your Lordships may not be persuaded by all the arguments from the other place, I urge you to bear in mind that the measure was re-inserted in the Bill by a substantial majority. I hope that that, together with the additional safeguard provided by Amendment No. 121B, will enable me to convince your Lordships that you should not stand in the way of this important Bill.
	These amendments are fundamental to the Bill. Lengthy discussions took place during the passage of the Bill, both here and in another place, on the position of chief officers. The Government have listened carefully to the arguments and--

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We do not have Amendment No. 121B in our papers. I have now been handed the amendment on a separate piece of paper.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I had a feeling of dread and horror as she said that. I shall continue with the thread of my argument. The Government have listened very carefully to the arguments and have concluded that our original proposal, that chief officers should be statutory office holders appointed by the Secretary of State, remains the best option. The proposal that chief officers should be employees of boards and appointed by them, despite being members of those same boards, all of whose other members have been appointed by the Secretary of State, would in our view seriously undermine the establishment of a national service and confuse national accountability. We wish to see chief officers fulfilling the role of effective chief executives of local services, directly accountable to the Secretary of State through the national director.
	I shall attempt to summarise the arguments against appointment by the Secretary of State and in favour of the amendments agreed by your Lordships on Report. They fall into two categories. The first contends that local is best and that it is an essential function of local probation boards to appoint their own chief officers, albeit subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. I understand that argument. However, I believe that it is misguided. Crime does not recognise local authority or national boundaries. If we are to receive an effective response, we need to take a wider view of these matters, in a national context and not in terms of traditional, local boxes.
	This Bill seeks to create a national probation service, organised into 42 local areas, to match those of the other criminal justice agencies. A national service would offer several advantages: greater consistency in dealing with offenders, so providing more effective and rigorous enforcement of community sentences; centrally-led offending behaviour programmes, based on real evidence that they work, and implemented in accordance with carefully designed procedures; a national risk management strategy, under which all services operate in accordance with the same procedures and use the same commonly understood terminology. But, of course, national services have always to be delivered locally. Therefore, it is inevitable that there should be both a national and a local focus for the service. Achieving a balance between the two is a matter of judgment. In our view, the principal focus must be national, in order to achieve the ambitious but realistic national targets for reducing re-offending that the Government have set for the service, and to give the service the best chance of protecting the public.
	The existing system, under which individual areas appoint their own chief officers, has failed. While there are many excellent chief probation officers, there are also some who are far from effective. One needs only to consider the variation in performance and the excessive variation in standards. For example, only 8 per cent of offenders who should have been breached were returned to court in one area, against 89 per cent in another. We need greater consistency. One way of achieving that is through the close control of the appointment of senior managers. The Government believe that the key executive in each area--the chief probation officer--should be appointed centrally. Consistency on appointments will lead to greater consistency in management, which will in turn lead to greater consistency in standards of performance.
	However, we agree that it is important that the local probation board should be involved in the selection of its chief officer. For that reason, during the current round of recruitment we have included the chairman designate, or other appropriate representatives from the local probation board, on the selection panel for every chief officer post to be filled. In that way, we can ensure a powerful local input to the process. That is the principle enshrined in our new Amendment No. 121B, which inserts a new sub-paragraph into paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. It requires that there should be a proper selection panel for all the Home Secretary's appointments occurring after the national probation service comes into being. It further requires that, in the case of chief officers, the local probation board should be represented on the panel. We believe that that is an important safeguard for local interests. I hope that the whole House will welcome it.
	The second category of arguments against the Government's position is what I shall refer to as the managerial argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and others have argued that the Government's proposals would create confused accountability. We do not agree. In our view, the lines are clear. The chief officer will be a member of the board and will be expected to assist in creating and implementing the board's policy. His executive membership of the board makes him clearly responsible for the deployment of the board's staff. But his own line management accountability will be to the National Director of the Probation Service and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. Any conflict between the Board and the Secretary of State will be resolved by means of a direction to the board from the Secretary of State, under the terms of paragraph 12 of Schedule 1.
	The amendments carried in this House on Report would create more confusion. They would provide for the boards to appoint one of their own number. That would result in a very peculiar relationship. I am disappointed that the arguments in favour of the status quo have been sustained as long as they have, with little evidence to support them.
	It has been pointed out, unfavourably, that there is no direct precedent for the appointment procedure favoured by the Government. That is true. However, there is no other structure quite like this one. It is a specific solution designed for a specific service. It combines the consistency of a national service with the local responsiveness of area organisation. An essential part of that system is that chief officers should be appointed by the Secretary of State. To achieve that effect, I urge your Lordships to accept the amendments made in the other place, along with the new government Amendment No. 121B.
	Of this group, Amendments Nos. 39A, 45A, 46A, 48A, 49A, 121A, 122A, 123A and 124A, taken together, would restore the Bill to its original position on this subject before the amendments were carried on Report. Without the amendments, it will not be possible to establish a national probation service from next April. Much needed reforms will be delayed and the establishment of CAFCASS will be at risk. The proposed fundamental change to the new structure could not be achieved in the time available, and transitional arrangements would be required until boards could appoint chief officers. It seems inevitable that committees would need to remain in place for some time. In our view, that would hamper the transfer of staff and other assets involved in family court welfare to CAFCASS. From a practical point of view, the amendments simply do not work.
	Amendments Nos. 44A, 50A and 50D are technical, tidy up the drafting and ensure consistency of phraseology throughout the Bill. Amendments Nos. 44B, 50B, 50C, 50E and 130A make changes to ensure that, wherever the words "local board" appear in the Bill they are changed to "local probation board". This reflects further amendments passed by your Lordships which the Government have accepted.
	I commend all these amendments to the House and hope that your Lordships will now agree to the text determined in another place subject only to the Government's new amendments. There is no doubt that the arrangements for the national probation service have been enhanced by the debates in your Lordships' House but in our view the time has come when we must draw a line. We have made changes to try to meet the understandable concerns of noble Lords. While some will no doubt see that as the Government's hand being forced, I should prefer to take the line advanced earlier in our proceedings by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that this is an example of the revising Chamber doing its work well. But there is only so much revision that can be done without seriously undermining the new national structure we wish to see established and I believe that we have reached that point.
	The appointment of chief officers is a fundamental issue and the Government cannot move beyond the very real changes that we have accepted to the Bill and now propose through Amendment No. 121B. I commend to the House this and all the other government amendments. I hope that he noble Lord, Lord Dholakia will not press his amendment but, as I have already mentioned, if there is a Division and his amendment is carried, the Government's amendments will fall and the House will have decided to insist on its original amendments.
	I urge your Lordships to accept the Government's amendment in lieu and let the Bill pass.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, this appears to be the appropriate time for me to speak to my Amendment No. 121C. Let me first concede that the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill is an important piece of legislation. We should never lose sight of the various provisions in the Bill which are designed to take into account issues of concern highlighted in recent times. The Bill is more effective now than when it was first introduced in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her colleagues on the Conservative Benches and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches must share a great deal of credit.
	Equally, I believe that after losing successive votes during the passage of the Bill the Government have looked at our concerns and offered solutions. For that, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
	There is no fundamental disagreement on three of the four issues which need resolution. That has already been identified. We are content with the assurances on the matter relating to hostels. However, I hope that the noble Lord will take into account some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We have no concerns about the chief inspectors of prisons and probation. We are pleased that there is no intention to combine the two posts and I thank the Minister for his assurance. But it would have saved so much time if that ill-conceived idea had not been floated in the first place. Let us hope that it is buried for good.
	Then there is the matter of who owns and manages land used by the national probation service. Again, if the Minister were to clarify the Government's position as indicated to me in his letter of 27th November there is no dispute that local probation boards will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the buildings they occupy. I look forward to having that assurance.
	There now remains one matter which needs to be resolved. It relates to the procedures for appointing chief probation officers. There is a fundamental disagreement between the Government and ourselves on this matter. The Government's key objective is the successful creation and management of a national service. We subscribe to that aim. They see the appointment of the chief probation officer by the Secretary of State as crucial to that aim. We disagree with them. We believe in local accountability. The system has worked well and has delivered what was asked of it. To take its chief officers under central control and allowing the boards to appoint other staff is a recipe for disaster. I cannot see any precedent and the Minister has agreed that there is no precedent for such action with any other bodies.
	The Government's solution as reflected in the Minister's amendment simply tinkers with the procedure without due regard to the principles of local accountability and management of its affairs. We may ask why the Government want to establish a system which is so oppressive. They have enough powers to deliver a centralised service without recourse to central employment. Perhaps I may spell that out and examine the controls which the Government already have.
	The controls available to the Secretary of State include the appointment of chair members of the local probation boards under the Bill before us; default powers under the Probation Service Act 1993; and the removal of board and activation of a management order under this Bill. The latter allows the removal by the Secretary of State of any or all of the members of the board, including the chief officer who will be a member of the board. The Secretary of State has available 100 per cent funding, again under the present Bill; control of the allocation of funding between boards under the Probation Service Act 1993; ring-fenced funding for specific Home Office priorities under probation rules; the control and allocation of capital budgets under the probation rules; and the approval of chief probation officers for selection and appointment by probation committees under the Probation Service Act 1993 and under the probation rules. Your Lordships can see that the Secretary of State already has wide powers. Why does he need any more powers?
	Let us look at the accountability of boards through the Secretary of State for expenditure and service delivery. The list includes annual audit by the Audit Commission; inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation; national standards; annual reports--

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He appears to be making a Second Reading speech on Commons amendments. I believe that the House would prefer him to make a speech about the amendments in front of us.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, what I am saying directly relates to the powers of the Home Secretary so what I am saying is necessary. The noble Lord might like to refer to my speech in Hansard. I shall continue with it. The list includes an annual report and regular returns of specified statistics. That information is available to the Home Secretary. A number of possible alternatives could be put in place regarding chief probation officers.
	I accept that a good start has already been made by the Home Office in relation to the assessment of candidates for chief officer posts. With the exception of the inevitable teething troubles, the new assessment centre process looks promising and rigorous. Not only will it provide a pool of candidates assessed as suitable but it will also identify training and development needs for those who do not pass first time. Again, we welcome that. Candidates will be approved for particular posts or a range of posts. Those powers are already available to the Home Secretary.
	The process is, in effect, a licence to practice as a chief officer in the Probation Service. That is good enough. If that licence is available, employment by the local probation board should pose no problem whatever. Arrangements could be made for the secondment of chief officers. Least satisfactory but worth considering is the appointment of a chief officer to a local probation board by the Secretary of State. That is possible, so why do we need a centralised appointments service?
	I am well aware of the disputes which are pending on the basis of the selection procedures adopted. The Minister's formula means that the buck stops with the Secretary of State. What a sorry state of affairs if in future the Home Secretary has to appear in industrial tribunal on employment disputes with chief probation officers.
	Let me spell out two other concerns. The obsession with central control creates a system which will be seen as oppressive and remote. The only element in the criminal justice system which offers some support to those appearing in court is the Probation Service. The criminal justice process is valid as long as we all have a stake in it and we share its ownership. If that is lacking the system will lose its credibility. There is also the frightening thought that some Home Secretaries could use the system for political expediency from which we are immune at present. I trust that the Minister will think again.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister who both defended the position of the Government today and kindly wrote to us in the period between the Bill leaving this House and returning to it has totally missed the fundamental point made by all noble Lords in previous debates. Although this is a narrow technical and legal issue it is a matter of extreme significance. One is considering here the ownership, culpability, responsibility and accountability of the chief officer to the service of which he is head. Who is to be the employer, not when things go right but when they go wrong?
	At the outset, I must pose some very important questions. Are these bodies corporate bodies? What operational autonomy will be enjoyed by the chief officers as they execute their responsibilities? Under the terms of the Bill is the chief officer a public office holder or civil servant? It is no secret that as to those questions the Home Office is in great disarray. It is essential that we receive unequivocal answers to those questions today.
	The chief officers of the probation service will be absolutely dismayed by what the Minister's said today about their performance. We are all aware of inconsistencies. Both the present and previous governments have gone a long way to try to improve consistency across the board. The previous government introduced What Works policies. Those policies have been continued by this Government and much progress has been made. However, the Home Secretary approves the appointment of every single chief probation officer. It is not good enough that the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box today and denigrate the performance of chief officers of probation when he is at least partly culpable in that he approved their appointment in the first place.
	The noble Lord said that there were only two strands to the argument: first, that local was best. Local is best because that is where the service is delivered. If it is not effective at local level it is not effective at all. The second strand relates to management. Linear management is absolutely crucial. I note that when speaking to these amendments in another place the Home Secretary likened the service to a company in private business. The analogy in private business is for W H Smith to have its head person appointed by Waterstones. Further, W H Smith is one single national company. That is not a good analogy at all. The noble Lord has been at pains to tell us that the boards are corporate bodies. We know that those boards are not NDPBs, but we should like to know their precise status.
	Just as there were a number of questions left unanswered on the issue of bail hostels, a number of matters remain unresolved in this context. The Minister said that through its chairmen the service itself would be involved in the appointment of chief officers. I would have hoped that that would happen without the need to place it on the face of the Bill. It is important that the service has such a role. Therefore, although I welcome that concession it is not one that displaces much that has been said about the amendments.
	I do not repeat the enormous number of powers that the Home Secretary has at the moment and will have under the Bill which give him 99.9 per cent control of the service. With almost complete control, one wonders just how personally culpable the Home Secretary will be if something goes wrong. One wonders just how culpable will be the Home Secretary, who wants to be the ultimate line manager in the technical and legal sense, if he merely comes to the Dispatch Box to announce that the chief officer of Whatshire has done something wrong.
	The document emanating from the Home Office makes it explicit that in the event of a conflict between the chief officer and the chairman of the board the employees of the board shall follow the instructions of the chief officer. But the chief officer may be at odds because he follows the instructions of the Home Secretary. Some learned minds believe that that will create problems which may need to be settled in court in the likely event of a conflict. Is that really what the Government want? The proposed legal structure gives the probation staff two masters, with the obvious additional complexity that the chief officer is a member of the board. The chief officer is also a direct Home Office agent. It is legitimate to ask whether that arrangement is coherent in employment and public law as both frameworks are relevant.
	Tensions are inherent in the architecture of the service and can be expressed in employment law before employment tribunals, particularly in cases of actual and constructive dismissal or judicial review of the acts or decisions of employers. There may be disagreements between boards and chief officers about the distribution of resources and consequent priorities. For example, the chief officer may wish to make enforcement the chief priority, whereas the board, with a clear duty to the local community, may opt to prioritise spending on crime and disorder matters.
	The model set out in the Bill does not have the ability to resolve potential problems where the chief officer belongs to the board but reports elsewhere. At present, conflicts will normally be resolved by a decision of the committee. The dynamic created by the proposal is highly problematic. For example, there could be structures to resolve disputes but the Government do not appear to believe that they are necessary. The links between the Minister, chairman, board, chief officer and staff are complex but remain unresolved in this Bill. There could be policy and operational distinctions, such as occur with Next Step agencies. Occasionally, when a problem presents itself resort has been had to such a distinction to decide who should have done what.
	Home Office documents refer to resolutions of conflict between the chief officer and the board. They suggest that the incidence of conflict may be too rare to worry about it. Importantly, employment law suggests that what matters is the pathology rather than the healthy state of an organisation. One cannot assume that there is no need to worry about conflict: that is just what one must worry about. We are all aware that goodwill can make most things work where the organisation is in a healthy state. Serious tension will need to be resolved in a much more formal way.
	I should like to record another tension. I refer to judgments about the performance of chief officers which I believe will be a real issue. One would have to be aware of the distinction between a failure in performance and failure to follow a particular political line. The specification of the position of the chief officer in following the wishes and instructions of the local board is vital. Clear and simple management structures are of the highest importance. If there was a linear structure of accountability with boards having clear accountability to the national director and the political centre, chief officers employed by board would be stronger and clearer in their role and it would provide the Minister with a more direct cogent route.
	I spoke to officials yesterday on the telephone. The Secretary of State could withdraw his approval of an appointment, which would probably mean dismissal of the individual if the Minister believed that in some way the performance of the chief officer was such that it gave rise to concern. Clearly, before a tribunal he would have to give reasons.
	I return to the questions that I posed earlier. What is to be the status of the chief officer? Will he or she be a civil servant or public office holder? What is the status of the board? Is it a corporate body? What degree of operational autonomy is to be enjoyed by a chief officer who serves his local community? The nature of a public office holder implies autonomy as with the charity commissioner and the data protection registrar. But in the probation proposal the status of the public office holder is being compromised by the level of direction. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

Lord Elton: My Lords, there is a preliminary point that needs to be cleared up. The Motion before the House refers to Amendment No. 39 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the House does not insist on its amendment for the reasons that he gave. The Motion to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, spoke applies very much later on in the Marshalled List. I believe that it is Amendment No. 121C, if I remember correctly. Therefore, if the House divides at the end of this debate, it will not be on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
	The noble Lord may wish to take advice or think about that for a moment. I entirely endorse what both the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend have said and in the interests of expedition I shall not say it again. The chief probation officer needs to be the servant and colleague of his board and not the servant of the Secretary of State and a colleague of his board.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wishes me to clarify a procedural issue. I am happy to do that at this stage. My understanding is that any Division as regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will have to wait until we deal with Amendment No. 121. We are now debating Amendment No. 39.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, since the Government are attempting to overturn an amendment which was put forward at the last stage in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and myself, I hope that the House will allow me to make a few points on this important matter. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, readily accepted, the matter is fundamental to this part of the Bill.
	It is not an argument as to whether we have a national service, but about how to make it most effective. It was striking that in the justification put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in seeking to overturn the amendment that this House passed on the last occasion, the word "consistency" rang like a dirge through his speech. The key word here is "effectiveness". After all, consistency can be second or third rate. We on this side of the House feel very strongly indeed that effectiveness is infinitely more important than consistency, particularly where a lack of it may be a very proper reflection of the different experiences in many parts of the country where different criminal regimes have to be contended with. There may be different social circumstances.
	If the Government want to neutralise the local probation boards and diminish them and ensure that no one of real power and consequence wants to serve on them, then they have only to continue treading this path. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, have said, the powers retained by the Home Secretary under this Bill are total. Here we have the responsibility of the boards without power.
	It is a question of the maintenance of experience. As the noble Lord has frankly admitted, there is no precedent for this measure. The characteristics of effectiveness, the morale, drive, pride, commitment and energy so desperately needed in the local boards if they are to do a good job--and how much we hope they do--are simply not consistent with the balance of powers constructed by Schedule 1 to the Bill and in particular if the chief officer is appointed or imposed by the Home Secretary of the day.
	Perhaps I may add to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If this were a company the Home Secretary's position would be that of a shadow director. If it were a trust, the Home Secretary's position would be that of a de facto trustee. There is no question about that. That alone should give pause in consideration of the arrangements being put forward.
	It is not unfair to suggest that perhaps the most unsatisfactory aspect of the 18 years of Conservative rule, as I hear it from their lips, is the way in which they chipped away at local powers and centralised. I thought that this Government understood the dangers of the tendency which every government suffer to centralise power in the wholly fallacious belief that if it is in Whitehall it will be better and more sensitively and economically exercised. I do not know of anyone beyond the Government Benches who believes that. If I wanted to score a cheap point--and I shall--one might cite the Dome where many hundreds of millions of pounds have been expended on precisely the principles that the noble Lord has advanced today for his Schedule 1 structure..
	Surely, the most important thing here is to have an effective partnership between the Home Secretary and the local boards. It must be a partnership that can work and of broadly equal powers. Here it is a partnership--if one can use that term at all--of subservience on the part of the local boards.
	I remind your Lordships that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, at previous stages of the Bill if he would explain how the matter would develop. Let us suppose that the chief officer of, let us say, the Suffolk probation board travels to London for a meeting with other chief probation officers under the guidance of the national chief probation officer, and he is told about the Government's line to be followed on particular aspects of the delivery of justice in the regions regarding punishment and policy towards the wide discretion which magistrates are given under our complicated criminal law. Let us assume that that line is not liked by the Suffolk chief probation officer. He returns to Suffolk with the order ringing in his ears to deliver that line of policy in the Suffolk probation board.
	Let us suppose that at the board meeting where this important matter of policy is discussed the remainder of the board believe as the chief officer does and persuade him that his views are the right ones for Suffolk. They may not be suitable for Newcastle or Liverpool. What is that probation officer to do?
	No answer has been forthcoming from the Government Benches. The reason is that there is no answer. The system proposed is of a chief probation officer with the person to whom he is responsible further along the line and who is not present at the board table and not even in Suffolk, but far away in London. In those circumstances unanimity among the members of his board can have no influence on what he can do and does. That is unworkable. If the Government do not know that then they should. That is why we on these Benches are persevering and why we shall not be content with anything short of the minimum requirement that a board must appoint its own chief officer. We must bear in mind and never forget that if he or she does not do well, he or she can be removed by the Home Secretary of the day at the flick of his or her pen. I speak for the Members of this House on these Benches and I know I also speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Government's proposal is a serious error and I hope very much that even at this stage they will have the courage to withdraw their amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, strong and powerful views have been expressed on a familiar argument which we have gone around on several occasions. At the outset I said that there was a fundamental disagreement between us. There remains a fundamental disagreement between us on these matters.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, thinks that the current system works well. Our view is that the current system, for all its strength--the strength is there in the staff, in the time given freely and honourably by members of local probation committees and in many of the chief officers--is far from perfect. For that reason we have set ourselves on this course of reforms.
	I made the point during my opening comments and observations about the disparity in enforcement and the wide variation in the way various orders are acted upon and interpreted; and it has to be remembered that there is considerable variation in the quality and integrity of many of the local programmes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made much of the other powers which the Secretary of State will have. I do not dispute that those powers are there. They are clearly set out as part of a new national scheme to create a new national service. We do not want to create a service where there is a built-in collision course. We believe it is better to have a system of appointments which will work from the beginning, and let the service get off to a good and sound start.
	We have set out in the Bill a system of practical management of services. It is not an argument about constitutional niceties. Much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his view, we shall continue to differ. We see the central appointment of the chief probation officer--the chief executive of the locally delivered service--as fundamental to our belief and commitment in our reforms to create and sustain a new national Probation Service.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a number of questions. She started by saying that it was an important technical and legal argument. She asked three questions. First, she asked whether local boards are bodies corporate? The answer is, yes, and the Bill makes that clear. Secondly, she asked whether chief officers are civil servants? The answer to that is, no, they are statutory office holders. Thirdly, she asked whether chief officers are autonomous? They are members of the board in the structure and must act for the board, but subject to the Secretary of State's direction. Certain functions within that can be delegated to them directly by regulation.
	We have had a strange debate. It has not borne directly on what we are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised an extraordinary red herring. She sought to compare this issue with the relationship between W H Smith and Waterstones. They are two separate commercial organisations. The situation that we are trying to create is where the Essex Probation Service is part of the same national organisation as the Gloucester Probation Service, rather than having two rival organisations. We are trying to create one organisation nationally. If the amendment is insisted upon by your Lordships' House, it will strike fundamentally at the heart of our powerful reforms.
	The question of conflict was part of the argument used against the Government's position. I thought that I had described accurately the line of accountability and the chain of management. There is no doubt that if there is a conflict there will be efforts undertaken to resolve any such conflict locally. But ultimately the chief probation officer is accountable to the Secretary of State through the national director of the Probation Service. Ultimately, if conflicts cannot be resolved through agreement, the Secretary of State will have to issue directions to resolve that conflict. From time to time all organisations have conflicts within them. That is inevitable in any organisation, whether it be national or local. We must have effective lines of management and effective lines of accountability to ensure that those conflicts can at least be handled; rather than what we have in many situations where local boards disagree with their local chief officer, who has a poor relationship with the local board, and there is no one in the current system able and capable to seek a resolution to the problems. We seek to put in place something which will address precisely that issue.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I gave the example of a chief probation officer being unhappy about a line of policy agreed in Whitehall, going to his board and finding that his or her board is of the same mind by dint of local circumstances. Does the Minister say that in that case the Home Secretary would issue a direction requiring unanimity of view on that board to be reversed? If that is so, what effect does he think that would have on that board?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that important point. There will not be a problem. The chief officer will advise the Secretary of State of the conflict. The Secretary of State will then issue a direction to the whole board, ensuring that the line of accountability is maintained, that the chief officer can act from a position of strength and that the chief officer can act with the full knowledge that he or she is acting in accordance with nationally directed policy. That is what we seek to achieve in this exercise. That makes the position plain and clear.
	That brings me to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She said that there should be a clear duty to the local community. There will be duties to the local community. But in putting the point in that way the noble Baroness is confusing the nature of a local service. It is not like a local authority where there are clear duties through the locally-elected councillors. Probation boards are not of that ilk. They are not that kind of local organisation. With the creation of a new national probation service they will be part of a national service. Their duty to a local community must surely be to ensure that there is effective public protection. That is the primary purpose in this exercise.
	I have described a clear, no nonsense, under- standable transparent system of linear accountability to a national organisation. If noble Lords opposite insist on their approach, they will be driving a wedge into the general thrust of the reforms that we propose. I believe that noble Lords fully understand that. The matter has been debated in your Lordships' House. More importantly, it has been determined in another place, not once but twice, and with very clear majorities. Another place is very clear about the Government's policy; and the Government are very clear about their policy objectives. It would be wrong. It would undermine the general direction of our policy towards the creation of a new Probation Service if your Lordships' House were to insist on amendments which were carried on Report. I urge your Lordships' House to think long and hard before disagreeing with the general thrust of the Government's reforms and with another place. That is the Government's position.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. The noble Lord said that the boards will be bodies corporate; that chief officers will be public office holders and that they will not have operational autonomy in the way that a chief police officer has. In the light of those answers and in the light of what I said earlier, a public office holder implies autonomy--for example, the charity commissioner or the data protection registrar. Neither of those public office holders are subject to the direction of any Secretary of State. Therefore, how can these be bodies corporate and public office holders and be different from public office holders and public bodies as we know them?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the short answer is that we have decided how we wish to have the system and line of accountability in creating an entirely different and specific national service. The members will have a degree of autonomy as they will be members of a board. But they will ultimately be subject to the constraints of a national service. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is how we see the new service developing. That is exactly what we wish to see develop. The noble Baroness clearly takes a different view. I am very surprised by the view that she takes, because when she was a Minister and held responsibilities not completely dissimilar to the ones that I hold, on a number of occasions she expressed frustration at the way in which the Probation Service was developing.
	We believe that the reforms are very important. The amendment would strike not just at the heart of what we are trying to achieve but at the certainty we need to achieve that objective.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it is not me who has a different view and has changed my mind; it is the Minister. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, he said that in the event of any tension the Home Secretary would override not just the chief officer but the whole board. Yet he has just said in answer to my question that the chief officer would have autonomy. He cannot have both.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I made it clear that there is a degree of autonomy. But I made an important point to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, when describing the relationship that ultimately would have to pertain and ultimately would have to reside; a situation where, yes, when push comes to shove, the Secretary of State will be able to issue directions to the local board.

Lord Warner: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may help him to clarify the position for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If we go along the route that she suggests, national standards might not be enforced in particular parts of the country and local boards might choose to ignore a national direction on the national standards regarding, for example, breaches of orders made by the courts.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is precisely the point. We are seeking for those very reasons to create a national service. We do not want widespread regional variations. We want national consistency with national standards. Noble Lords opposite are seeking to undermine that important principle.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, there is confusion here. Does the noble Lord agree that under the Bill the Secretary of State will have power to get rid of the board if it does not follow a direction from the national service? The answer is "yes".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the answer is yes, but that is not the point. The chief officer has day-to-day organisational responsibility for that part of the Probation Service. The chief officer is in an important position of responsibility in managing the day-to-day affairs of the local probation service.

Lord Carter: My Lords, we may have reached the point where it would be helpful if I gave the House some procedural advice. I am not entering into the debate on the merits of the various amendments. The only way in which the House can have a vote, which is what I think it wants to do, is to vote on Amendment No. 121C. No Motions have been tabled to any of the other amendments before the House. There is always confusion over Commons amendments. There is only one way in which the House can have a vote--I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is nodding. Notice has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to insist on Amendment No. 121. The House can do that by voting for Amendment No. 121C, although I hope that the majority of the House will vote against it. No notice has been given of opposition to Amendment No. 39. Therefore, the decision on Amendment No. 39 is not procedurally binding on Amendment No. 121. Therefore, the only amendment on which there can be a vote is Amendment No. 121C.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	41 Clause 18, page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (b)
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	41A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No, 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	42 Clause 19, page 9, line 3, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	42A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	43 Clause 19, page 9, line 7, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	43A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 42A and 43A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 42A and 43A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	44 Clause 20, page 9, line 20, leave out subsection (2)
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill--
	44A Clause 20, page 9, line 22, leave out ("for") and insert ("of")
	44B Clause 20, page 9, line 23, after ("local") insert ("probation")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44A and 44B to the words so restored to the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44A and 44B to the words so restored to the Bill.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	45 Clause 20, page 9, line 25, leave out ("or persons so employed")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	45A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	46 Clause 20, page 9, line 27, leave out ("or person so employed")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	46A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	48 Clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave out ("and chief probation officers")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	48A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	49 Clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave out ("or appointed")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	49A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48 and 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A, 46A, 48A and 49A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48 and 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A, 46A, 48A and 49A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	50Leave out Clause 22
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill--
	50A Clause 22, page 10, line 35, leave out ("for") and insert ("of")
	50B Clause 22, page 10, line 35, after ("local") insert ("probation")
	50C Clause 22, page 10, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation")
	50D Clause 22, page 11, line 6, leave out ("for") and insert ("of")
	50E Clause 22, page 11, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation")
	50F Clause 22, page 11, line 12, after ("local") insert ("probation")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 50 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50A to 50F to the words so restored to the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 50 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50A to 50F to the words so restored to the Bill.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	76 Clause 41, page 24, leave out lines 31 to line 38
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof--
	76A Clause 41, page 22, line 39, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
	76B Page 23, line 5, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
	76C Page 81, line 17, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
	The Commons further proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill--
	76D Clause 41, page 24, line 31, leave out from ("direct") to ("shall") in line 36 and insert ("that section 40A(5) above")
	76E Page 24, line 37, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the order")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendments Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.
	The amendments restore to the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. They also increase the maximum length of exclusion order requirements to two years rather than 12 months. Other amendments are consequential on the removal from the Bill of the delegated power to alter the maximum length of an exclusion order, an exclusion or curfew condition or another community order, or a drug abstinence order. They simply ensure that the delegated powers which remain are correctly referred to in the right places--that is, the right powers are shown to be subject to negative and affirmative resolution procedures--and those powers which no longer exist are no longer referred to. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendment Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting on the face of the Bill the two years' maximum. We fought hard in this House for that provision and so we are grateful for the concession made in another place. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to clarify what he has just said. Did he say that he was reinstating the Secretary of State's power to increase maximum sentences? My understanding was that they were to be removed and that the provision to increase the maximum sentence would be on the face of the Bill. That was the argument we put to the noble Lord for deleting the power and taking the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I said that the amendments restore to the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. I think that the noble Baroness now follows what we are trying to achieve. It certainly reflects the understanding that we thought we had reached.
	The amendments accepted in your Lordships' House earlier in the passage of the Bill were moved on the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. They deleted from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to alter the maximum period of exclusion orders or exclusion curfew requirements of other community orders and of drug abstinence orders. However, those same amendments inadvertently deleted non-contentious powers that allowed the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion curfew conditions. Notice was therefore given that it would be necessary to restore these non-contentious powers.
	The changes made in another place are designed to meet the wishes of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, while at the same time ensuring that the powers that ought to remain do remain. I hope that this explanation will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Baroness.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendments Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I had misheard the Minister. I am delighted with what he has just said. It represents a sizeable concession. I thank the noble Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	78 Clause 42, page 26, leave out lines 12 to 15
	The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendments to the Bill--
	78A Clause 42, page 78, line 23, leave out ("58B(4)")
	78B Clause 42, page 78, line 30, leave out ("40C(2) or 58B(4)") and insert ("or 40C(2)")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 78, to which the Commons have agreed.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 78, to which the Commons have agreed.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.).

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	79 Clause 45, page 29, leave out lines 14 to 19
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill--
	79A Clause 45, page 29, leave out lines 15 to 17
	79B Clause 45, page 29, line 19, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the order")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 79B to the words so restored to the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 79B to the words so restored to the Bill.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	80 Clause 46, page 30, leave out lines 15 to 20
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof--
	80A Clause 46, page 29, line 27, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
	80B Clause 46, page 81, line 10, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
	The Commons further proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill--
	80C Clause 46, page 30, leave out lines 16 to 18
	80D Clause 46, page 30, line 20, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the order")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 80, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80A and 80B in lieu thereof, and Amendments Nos. 80C and 80D to the words so restored to the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 80, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80A and 80B in lieu thereof, and Amendments Nos. 80C and 80D to the words so restored to the Bill.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 106
	Clause 63, page 43, line 2, at end insert--
	("( ) This section shall apply only in cases where the failure to attend school is with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof--
	106A Clause 63, page 42, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("of") and insert ("In section 444")
	106B Clause 63, page 42, line 36, leave out from ("school)") to ("is") in line 37 and insert--
	("(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted--
	"(1A) If in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails without reasonable justification to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence.",.
	(b) in subsection (8), for "this section" there is substituted "subsection (1)",
	(c) after that subsection there is inserted--
	"(8A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1A)").
	106C Clause 63, page 42, line 41, at end insert--
	("(8B) If, on the trial of an offence under subsection (1A), the court finds the defendant not guilty of that offence but is satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may find him guilty of that offence").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 106, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106A to 106C in lieu thereof.
	Briefly, these provisions will create a new and additional aggravated offence with a maximum penalty at level 4 and/or three months' imprisonment. The current offence under Section 444 would remain unchanged. However, the new and additional aggravated offence would require proof of parental knowledge of truancy and failure without "reasonable justification" to,
	"cause the child to fail to attend regularly at school".
	The failure to appear in court to answer the summons in respect of the aggravated offence would allow the issuing of a warrant to secure attendance.
	We have debated these matters at considerable length on earlier occasions. What we have put before noble Lords today are, I believe, the fruits of a common agreement and understanding of the very necessary changes that we seek to make.
	I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind words of commendation for the approach adopted by the Government and I congratulate him on securing what I believe is now a position of common consent between us.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 106, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106A to 106C in lieu thereof.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister and, through him, his officials for the care that they have put into this matter. Perhaps I may also congratulate parliamentary counsel on the exactitude with which the agreement reached between us has been embodied. I am fully satisfied and I thank all those involved.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	121 Schedule 1, page 46, line 10, at end insert?
	("( ) The chief officer is to be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State.")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	121A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof--
	121BSchedule 1, page 46, line 15, at end insert--
	("( ) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision--
	(a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and the other members of the board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels,
	(b) in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.")
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, but propose Amendment No. 121B in lieu thereof.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Dholakia: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, and do agree to Amendment No. 121B in lieu thereof--
	121CLeave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 121".

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 121C.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121C) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 139.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion No. 121B agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	122 Schedule 1, page 46, line 11, leave out (", the chief officer")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	122A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	123 Schedule 1, page 46, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (5)
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	123A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	124 Schedule 1, page 46, line 33, leave out ("sub-paragraph (5) and")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	124A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 122A to 124A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 122A to 124A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	130 Schedule 1, page 47, line 37, leave out paragraph 10
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill--
	130A Schedule 1, page 47, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130A to the words so restored to the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130A to the words so restored to the Bill.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	135 Schedule 1, page 48, line 12, after ("holding") insert ("or managing land and other")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	135A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land and it is not necessary to confer on them the proposed power to manage.
	MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON NO. 135A

Lord Bassam of Brighton: rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof--
	135BSchedule 1, page 48, line 18, at end insert ("(though they may manage it)?)

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A and do agree to Amendment No. 135B in lieu thereof.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A and do agree to Amendment No. 135B in lieu thereof.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	137 Schedule 1, page 48, line 18, after ("hold") insert ("or manage")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	137A Because the Commons believe that it is not necessary to confer on local probation boards the proposed power to manage.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	138 Schedule 1, page 48, line 18, at end insert ("without the approval of the Secretary of State")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	138A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land and it is not necessary to confer on them the proposed power to manage.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 137A and 138A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 137A and 138A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	245 Schedule 6, page 78, line 20, leave out ("40(2), 40C(2), 58B(4),") and insert ("40(2)(b), 40C(2)(b),")
	The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment--
	245A Schedule 6, line 2, leave out ("40C(2)(b)") and insert ("40C(2)")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 245A to Lords Amendment No. 245.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 245A to Lords Amendment No. 245.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	246 Schedule 6, page 78, line 21, leave out ("7(9) or 8(8)") and insert ("7(9)(b) or 8(8)(b)")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	246A Because the Commons believe that the amendment is not necessary in consequence of the amendments made by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill by the disagreement of the Commons with Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 80.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 246 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 246A.
	Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 246 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 246A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	247 Schedule 6, page 78, line 22, at end insert--
	("( ) after "15(1)" there is inserted "40(2)(a), 40C(2)(a)",")
	The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment--
	247A Schedule 6, line 3, leave out ("40C(2)(a)")

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247A to Lords Amendment No. 247.
	Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247A to Lords Amendment No. 247.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	248 Schedule 6, page 78, line 24, after second ("or") insert ("paragraph 7(9)(a) or 8(8)(a) of Schedule 2 or")
	The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
	248A Because the Commons believe that the amendment is not necessary in consequence of the amendments made by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill by the disagreement of the Commons with Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 80.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 248 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 248A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 248 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 248A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the rural White Paper, I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords. There is a maximum of 20 minutes for contributions from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Minister's reply, followed by 20 minutes for Back-Bench Peers to speak and ask questions.

Rural White Paper

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the rural policy White Paper. The Statement is as follows:
	"The Government have today published a White Paper on the future of rural England, produced jointly by my department and MAFF. I am also publishing the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the rural White Paper. Copies have been placed in the Library.
	"A common message runs through both this White Paper and the urban White Paper. They are about tackling the real issues that matter to people--jobs, housing, services, transport and having a real say in what happens locally. We want communities in which economic prosperity, social justice and a healthy environment go hand in hand.
	"Much of rural Britain is thriving, but there are real problems and many of them have got worse over the last 20 years. For example, farm incomes have fallen by 60 per cent in five years; many families cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up; and seven out of 10 of our poorest counties are rural.
	"Our consultation with rural communities showed that person after person in rural areas complained that their basic services had disappeared. Over the last two decades, thousands of rural bus services have shut down, leaving only one in four parishes with a daily service; 450 village schools were closed--that is more than one every two weeks; more than 100 rural post offices closed each year; and, while the last administration permitted an explosion of out-of-town superstores, more than 4,000 village shops went out of business.
	"The countryside is no stranger to change and our task is to give people the tools to respond to that challenge. This White Paper represents a new commitment to rural communities and gives them the powers and resources to manage change. It brings together a new, comprehensive approach incorporating legislation we have already agreed. It provides a framework for our rural policies for the future. It presents a more comprehensive approach to the needs of the countryside. Increasingly, rural areas will benefit from our main programmes on health, education, housing and employment. In addition, we have doubled specific rural spending from £600 million in 1997-98 to £1.2 billion this year; and we are committing an extra £1 billion to farming and rural programmes over the next three years.
	"There are five main elements to our White Paper: improving services; tackling poverty; the rural economy; protecting the countryside and wildlife; and giving more choice to local people. Access to basic services for people in rural areas is what they really want and is the most important element of the White Paper.
	"People in rural areas should know what services they are entitled to. So, for the first time, we are publishing a Rural Service Standard. It will set out minimum service standards and targets for the full range of public services, from education to health and childcare to emergency services.
	"To improve healthcare in rural areas we are providing £100 million for one-stop primary healthcare centres or mobile units in 100 rural communities. To reverse the decline of rural post offices we are investing £270 million to turn post offices into one-stop shops with access to banking, prescriptions, local authority and other services. I can announce that the pilot scheme will be in Leicestershire, involving 280 post offices and starting next spring. Thousands of villages have lost their local shops. We propose to offer mandatory rate relief to more village shops, pubs and garages. And we are launching a new £15 million rural community service fund to support local enterprise and help local groups re-establish lost services.
	"To improve education in rural areas we have introduced stronger safeguards to protect rural schools from closure. We are providing rural police forces with an extra £45 million over the next two years. And, as the Chancellor announced, we are helping local communities which use their local church to provide community services by reducing the rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent.
	"The House will be aware of the importance of transport to rural areas. The Chancellor in his Pre Budget Report froze fuel duty and reduced VED on smaller cars. But public transport is absolutely vital. We have already increased funding for rural buses by £170 million, with 1,800 new services. We are now investing another £192 million over the next three years in rural transport.
	"People have told us that in some places they need much more flexible transport solutions. So we are setting up a new £15 million special transport fund. The fund will give to those parishes that want it up to £10,000 each to provide their own small-scale solutions to local transport problems such as support for car clubs, taxi services and community transport. As announced in our Ten-Year Plan, we will extend the existing fuel duty rebate for buses to community transport schemes. For a typical minibus this could be worth up to £3,000 a year.
	"There is growing concern about controlling speeding traffic in villages and on country roads. We will allow local communities to make villages and rural roads safer by reducing speed limits and investing more in traffic calming. We will also invest more than £1 billion over 10 years in rural bypasses.
	"Like rural areas, urban areas require affordable housing. We are doubling the Housing Corporation programme by 2003-04. This, together with local authority investment and planning reforms, will provide a total of 3,000 affordable homes a year in small rural settlements and a total of around 9,000 homes a year across all rural districts. In some areas better use of planning rules could provide one affordable home for every new home built. Our new starter home initiative will also help key workers on modest incomes to buy their homes in areas of high prices and high demand.
	"There are strong feelings of resentment in some areas that second home owners benefit from a 50 per cent council tax discount while local people cannot find enough affordable housing. We propose to give local authorities in England the same discretion as in Wales to end the 50 per cent discount. As a new departure we propose to use the proceeds for extra affordable housing. This will be discretionary but it could be worth up to £150 million a year. We are required to consult on this and will do so as soon as possible.
	"Like urban areas, rural areas benefit from a strong local economy. Market towns are the heart of economic growth in rural areas. We are investing an extra £37 million over the next three years to help create new opportunities, new work spaces, restored high streets, better amenities and good transport links to surrounding areas. With partnership funds this will create a £100 million package for 100 market towns. We are giving the regional development agencies greater flexibility and a more specific rural remit within the additional £500 million in their budgets. There will also be special business support and training tailored for small businesses in rural areas.
	"The House has often expressed the view that agriculture plays a crucial role in the countryside and rural economy. The Action Plan for Farming sets out our policies for the future of farming. Farming will continue to produce the bulk of the nation's food and contribute to exports. It contributes to a good quality environment and the wider local economy; but many farmers need to diversify in order to stay in business.
	"The House will recall that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently announced a £1.6 billion seven-year package for agriculture in the new England Rural Development Programme. This will increase environmental support for farmers and help them to start new business enterprises. And the Government are making available an additional £500 million to help the farming industry modernise and restructure, in addition to the £2.5 billion a year from the European Union. Recognising the real difficulties faced by agriculture, we will, in addition, reform our planning rules to help farmers diversify and we are today launching a consultation paper to give rate relief for rural diversification projects.
	Our consultation has shown a great deal of concern for a small but important part of the rural economy--the maintenance of small rural abattoirs, which have faced increased inspection fees. We shall introduce additional targeted help to support local abattoirs without any detriment to food standards.
	"Our beautiful countryside is valued by people who live in it and those who visit it. We all recognise the work that rural people have carried out over generations to protect the countryside. To relieve the pressure of development on the countryside, we shall be building on urban brownfields first and greenfields last. We shall build higher quality housing and make better use of land by building at more sustainable densities. Therefore, we now require local authorities to notify me of all major housing developments planned for greenfield sites.
	"The House will be aware that we were reviewing our controls over roadside advertisements in the countryside. I can announce that we will not change our rules but will maintain our controls over advertisements in the countryside".

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but it seems to me that there is more to the Statement. I certainly have another two pages of it in front of me.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I knew that it was too good to be true! Some of my noble friends wish to be off early tonight, but, nevertheless, I apologise. I fear that the last two pages of the Statement were not before me. I must express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for making that observation. However, I shall return to the Statement:
	"Following this debate, the House will move on to the final stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. This major Bill will give additional protection to our countryside, conserve its wildlife and make it accessible to all--something we have waited a long time for.
	"Our consultation showed that for too long local people have felt that they have not been able to take decisions for themselves. We want local communities to play a bigger part in shaping their own future because every community has its own priorities, strengths and distinctiveness.
	"The performance of our parish councils varies. We shall promote new "quality" town or parish councils, which will be able to take on a bigger role in providing and managing local services in partnership with principal authorities. We shall provide £7 million to help parish and town councils to meet the quality standard and shape their own future and for the first time to help 1,000 communities develop town and village plans, which can then feed into the statutory planning process. In addition, the Countryside Agency will equip every town and parish with access to the Internet. Town and village plans will allow local people to set design standards and preserve the character of their villages.
	"As our consultation revealed, all too often in the past, and at all levels of government, rural needs and priorities have been overlooked. We shall ensure that the commitments in this White Paper are followed through. To achieve that, the Countryside Agency will produce an annual report on how major policies have been assessed for their rural impact, we shall establish new rural advisory boards at national and regional level and a new rural advocate--Ewen Cameron, chairman of the Countryside Agency--will argue the case on countryside issues at the highest levels in government and outside.
	"We are clear that it is impossible to tackle the problems of the countryside in isolation. We need to look at them as a whole across government. The White Paper will promote: a living countryside, with thriving rural communities and access to high quality services; a working countryside, with a strong economy giving high and stable levels of employment; a protected countryside, which we can all enjoy; and a vibrant countryside, which can shape its own future and have its voice heard by government at all levels.
	"Some people want us to divide town and country. We are governing for the whole country. Our aim is a living, working countryside with better access for all people to enjoy. I commend the White Paper to the House".
	My Lords, I believe that that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier this afternoon. As noble Lords will have realised, it is a very full White Paper. The noble Lord's introduction took over 11 minutes to deliver. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I give a rather full response to a most important Statement.
	We welcome much that is in the Statement. It is good to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is sitting next to the Minister. Obviously, the White Paper deals with both rural areas and farming matters. That is why the Statement is so welcome. We also welcome the greater flexibility that has been announced, especially the fact that this will bring greater responsibility to local parishes; in other words, it will bring such matters right down to the lowest level--something for which we have been pressing for some time.
	The White Paper deals with the relationship between the working countryside--the farming side of it--and the rural aspects involved. We welcome, too, the money that the Minister said will be available to enforce some of the proposals in the White Paper. However, we are somewhat concerned that some of that money may be recycled money. We shall need several days to work out the total commitment in the Statement and the rural White Paper.
	The White Paper also refers to the need for "multiple consultation". The Government came into office in 1997. Since that time, we seem to have consultation after consultation on rural matters. The one thing that we are looking forward to--and what we hope will come out of this process--is seeing some action. Just recently we had an extremely good report from the Better Regulation Task Force, Environmental Regulations and Farmers. This is an ideal consultation booklet. However, having consulted, we now need to move forward. With all the thrusts and the wide range of issues that are covered in the White Paper, I just hope that we shall quickly see some action and forward movement, rather than having to wait for it to take place in a little while.
	I listened to the comments made this morning by the CBI and was slightly worried by the statements made about the responsibilities and extra burdens that small businesses in particular have to carry. I raise this issue because of taxation and regulation and because local small businesses are to be found predominantly in rural areas. I am very hopeful that the Government will take this matter on board and consider the issues raised by the CBI this morning. For example, do the Government intend to reduce the burdens on both large and small businesses, but especially on the smaller ones that were referred to this morning? Moreover, will the Government compensate the agricultural community for the extra costs that it has had to bear as a result of European directives, and the gold-plating that we have enforced on animal welfare rules? We are hopeful that this will be resolved by way of the White Paper's proposals.
	Further, will the Government continue to follow our lead and not introduce EC directives in advance of the time set for them to be introduced? The noble Baroness and I have had discussions on that issue, which is a real worry to the farming community. Farmers are also concerned about the amount of regulations to which they have to adhere.
	The Minister referred to the White Paper as "practical". Many of the examples given in the document are practical and most welcome. However, perhaps I may address one of the big issues therein; namely, the matter of housing. As has emerged from our many debates on the subject, housing in rural areas is crucially important. The White Paper proposes enforcing guidelines in respect of "affordable homes". Can the Minister give us a clearer classification on "affordable homes"? For example, how will those houses be protected if they are for local occupancy in the immediate future? How will they be protected in the future? Will people who are able to take advantage of affordable homes then become owners, or will they be only, say, life tenants? Will they stay in their local community for affordable homes within that area? I do not believe that the White Paper deals with that aspect of the matter.
	We welcome the changes in some of the planning guidance indicated in the booklet, but I wonder whether some of the proposals are strong enough. For example, both the Statement and the booklet say that for every new house built, one affordable new home should be built. However, that may be impractical in many of our villages. Some villages may need only 10 or 12 new homes and other types of housing may be required. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify that.
	We welcome the U-turn on the Government's proposed controls on advertising in rural areas. During debate on the countryside Bill we said that we did not wish to see the countryside covered in hoardings. With regard to housing, I understand that a reduced rate of VAT will be levied for the conversion of buildings to residential use. Does that apply just to the conversion of barns to houses or does it include the conversion of bigger houses into smaller units? The document does not make that clear. Will the VAT burden in this regard be removed altogether from houses built more than 10 years ago or will it be reduced only down to the 5 per cent which I believe is recommended in the case of the conversion of other buildings?
	As regards grants for brownfield sites which we have discussed in this House on many occasions, I understand that the EC has to give approval for grants to develop brownfield sites. I understand that that approval has been challenged. What progress has been made on that front?
	I turn to agri-environment schemes and rural development. The Government stated in their response on page 11:
	"We urge the Treasury to explore the potential for greater use of pooled budgets. The comprehensive spending review provides a timely opportunity to improve the effectiveness of spending in rural areas".
	Will the Government consider simplifying the multiplicity of agri-environment schemes and rural development initiatives that exist? At the moment there are so many that it is confusing for those who wish to apply. Again I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
	The document is full of useful points. We are particularly delighted with the implications of the proposals for strengthening parishes. With regard to the restrictions on speed and--this is not mentioned--the whole issue of parking in parish areas, will the parishes decide these matters for themselves or will local authorities at a more senior level decide which parishes will be able, and will be allowed, to develop in the way the document suggests? I should be grateful for clarification on that point.
	I have just touched on a few of the many points in the document. However, I am aware of the time constraints that apply to the debate. I hope that we shall be able to debate the document at greater length in the New Year. The document deserves a full debate. I am concerned about whether the funding will be adequate for what the Government are trying to do. Will it improve the life of those who live and work in the countryside? The document seeks to allow greater diversity to farmers and others to adapt their businesses. However, I am concerned as to how we ensure that some of the new jobs that are to be created will be taken up by people who currently live and work in the countryside. Will they not result in many people who live in urban areas being attracted to rural areas and thus not solve the problems that the Government seek to solve?
	There is much to recommend in the document. I am sorry that I have spoken for rather a long time. I have not addressed many of the areas which I hope others will cover. Again I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the Statement and the publication of the rural White Paper. However, if it was in my fridge, I would suspect that it was rather past its sell by date. Having looking beyond the packaging, on the other hand, it seems to offer some good reading and some good thoughts.
	The fact that the document is a joint publication of the DETR and MAFF suggests a new way of working between them. That is to be greatly welcomed. The document offers a new start in reversing the trends of decline of the past two decades when, as the Statement made clear, the countryside suffered badly from such developments as out of town shopping, the decline in services and, not least, the pressure on local authorities' budgets which forced them to cut back many of their important rural services.
	However, the rural White Paper contains no definition of why we value the countryside and the unique qualities of its economy. That is regrettable if the document is to be a vision for the future. A little more attention could have been devoted to the land based nature of the economy and the extent to which people want to move away from that. However, we welcome the development of a rural services standard. We have pressed for such a standard on several occasions in this House and in the other place. We are absolutely delighted that the Government will introduce it.
	We are concerned about the introduction of a strangely named "regional rural sounding board" and a "national rural sounding board". I say with all due respect to the chairman of the Countryside Agency, whom I admire and respect tremendously--I believe that he is a rural advocate or a czar for rural areas--that he is not really accountable to anyone. I believe that the Countryside Agency is accountable to the DETR. Therefore he is almost judge and jury in his own cause. Having said that, I hope that such an appointment will in the future prevent government departments from inflicting on rural areas disasters such as that which has occurred with post offices. The Government will have to have to try to rectify that situation. We welcome the pilot scheme that is mentioned in the White Paper with regard to post offices and hope that it will be successful.
	The rural White Paper acknowledges the dramatic fall in farm incomes of 60 per cent in five years. When I said that the document was rather past its sell by date I had in mind, for example, the Government's lack of response to the Maclean report on small abattoirs. I hope that the fine words in the rural White Paper will produce some rapid action in that area and will not just be fine words.
	There are some good points in the White Paper with regard to the "local food, local people" issue and developing local markets for farmers' produce. However, those points need to be followed up with firm action. The Government need to consider further their attitude to suppliers' relationships with supermarkets.
	The White Paper mentions funding that can be bid for. The figures appear large, but if one divides them into the number of rural communities and small towns, many of them will gain nothing more than a new bus shelter and a notice board. I do not believe that that kind of funding should be the bottom line. We on these Benches believe that local authorities should be given a fair deal.
	I draw the Minister's attention to the neighbourhood renewal fund. The DETR proposes to allocate less than 8 per cent of that renewal fund to address deprivation in communities served by two-tier local government structures; that is, rural communities. The inequity of that can be readily demonstrated as two-tier areas contain 46 per cent of the population and just under a third of the top 10 per cent of deprived wards. However, around half of the most deprived wards in two-tier areas will receive no funding because their needs are not apparent in data which are averaged out at council level. This is in stark contrast to modestly deprived wards falling within unitary authority areas. They will receive only 4 per cent; and then will not receive that funding. It may seem a complicated point but I hope that there is no disguise, with rural areas appearing to receive better funding which is, however, taken away in other ways. The Government need to bear in mind that rural areas are typified by pockets of localised deprivation.
	While we welcome the strengthening of the role of parish councils, we are worried about the development of a two-tier system--quality parish councils, and the remainder. I hope that the Government will consider removing the Section 137 restriction upon what even small and excellent parish councils can do. There is no mention of creating parish councils throughout the country. That is surely something we should press for.
	We welcome the doubling of the rural housing programme from almost nothing. As regards key workers, will the same criteria apply to them in rural and urban areas? Village halls are the key meeting point for rural communities. It is a shame that the Chancellor has reduced VAT only on church repairs but not village hall repairs. Perhaps the Government will reconsider the issue now that they concede that rural churches are important, as indeed are village halls.
	Finally, the White Paper demonstrates what good practice can produce. The funding is still ring-fenced. The RDAs are being given more money. The money is being targeted through quangos but without a great deal of accountability. It is tiring for rural communities to have to bid again and again, without always receiving such funding.
	Although we welcome much that is in the Statement and the good practice put forward, we believe that the services that local authorities can offer have been underplayed. I echo the wish for a fuller debate on the White Paper. However, I believe that we should have a debate on the urban and rural White Papers. There is a lack of reference between the two in the White Paper. The House would benefit from a further debate on the two issues together.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this will be a brief Minister's response in view of the time. I am grateful for the welcome given by both Front Benches to many aspects of the White Paper.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the burden on small businesses. The action plan for farming already has a number of commitments to review and remove regulatory burdens and planning requirements in relation to farming, all of which are being acted upon. We shall have further consultation with regard to the environmental burdens identified recently.
	As regards affordable housing, the options in the White Paper are available to local authorities and existing planning powers can achieve quite a lot. Whether the one-for-one approach were adopted would be a matter for the local market and local authority. But it would be useful in certain circumstances depending on the local housing market. Substantial additional powers and additional resources for affordable housing run through the White Paper.
	The noble Baroness asked whether one could convert a larger building into a smaller building with VAT benefit. The answer is yes. Brownfield sites, previously developed land, must be discussed with the planners. Applications will need to take account of a range of considerations. But the intention is that the sequence of the planning hierarchy would mean that brownfield sites as defined locally would be the first to be built upon. We would restrict greenfield development, therefore, in the countryside.
	The noble Baroness also referred to the possible influx from urban areas. The answer is that we have to get the urban policy right at the same time as we are getting the rural policy right. Therefore, the urban and rural White Papers fit together. The House authorities may well deem it sensible for us to have a debate on those issues.
	My allocated time is up. I shall write to the noble Baronesses on other points.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and the commitment of the Labour Party to govern on behalf of rural and urban communities. For too long the Labour Party has been regarded as a representative party only of city and urban communities.
	I welcome the commitment to a vibrant and working countryside. There is no point in talking about improving the post office facilities here and there unless one gives people the opportunity of employment in the countryside. I have a special interest in forestry matters. I contacted the Forestry Commission on the continuing decline in opportunities for workers in the forestry industry. In 1993-94 the Forestry Commission lost 1,100 employees in countryside towns. The figures for private estates dropped from 15,000 to 10,000, and so it goes on. One will not have continuing employment opportunities in the countryside unless one continues to plant trees. At present there is a dramatic drop in planting trees. In this country, we are now planting more hardwoods than softwoods. Hardwoods have a rotation of 100 years. Even on a diminished planting programme, one is providing employment for 100 years' time.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may beg my noble friend to be brief.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I would have welcomed some reference to the opportunities for a developing forestry policy and the sustaining of this natural resource.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the points my noble friend makes about forestry. Clearly, the decline in forestry employment has helped the shift away from primary production in rural areas. There are opportunities for planting new forests; and for reviving forestry. Under the REDP there are woodland grants; and we give support to both private and corporate forestry proposals.
	When we refer to the decline in some of the traditional industries in rural areas, it is important that we also paint the other side of the picture. Many small businesses have been built up in rural areas over recent years. Until the relatively recent decline in agricultural incomes, there were booming parts of the rural area with new industries and new enterprises which employed many people. To gain a full picture of the rural economy we need also to take that into account, important though agriculture and forestry are.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. I appreciate that he had to encompass a great many facts in a short Statement. However, I wish to ask about two issues of importance to many people.
	The Minister mentioned the one-stop shop for post offices, chemists and banks. I cannot imagine a man or a woman handing out stamps, aspirin, and cheques. I do not know whether the reference means a kind of lobby involving several businesses together. Will people be directed, or will they volunteer, to go there?
	Finally, when the Minister mentioned that the special council tax arrangements for single dwellers would be withdrawn, was he referring to anyone who is a single dweller in the country or only to someone whose house is his second home?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the noble Baroness's second point, I believe that she is referring to second homes. In cases where a 50 per cent reduction in council tax applies to second homes, we are giving local authorities the opportunity to raise that tax to the full level. It is a discretionary opportunity and local authorities will have to judge their own housing situation. The money raised would also provide the resource for developing more affordable housing within mainly rural local authority areas.
	With regard to the noble Baroness's first point about one-stop shops, it is a tragedy that in many of our villages there is no shop. What remains may be a garage, a pub or a post office. Our objective is for a wider range of services to be provided in that shop or for a new shop to be opened which will not depend simply on the delivery of groceries or post office services but which will have greater opportunities for delivering government services or providing inter-medical or other services.
	Historically, post offices have often provided that range of services. Therefore, I do not believe that the situation is quite as difficult as the noble Baroness suggests. Nevertheless, not every such shop provides all the services, and we want to encourage them to deliver as wide a range as possible. The support for rural post offices, in particular, of £270 million should enable such shops to develop in order to do so. The experiment in Leicestershire will be directed at indicating how well that can be achieved.

The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. I want to raise two points with the Minister, one of which is a question. In the Statement he said that much of rural Britain is thriving. With regard to economy, the White Paper states that farming is in crisis. How can he square that circle?
	My second point is that I do not believe that the Minister answered the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, with regard to the tenure of social housing in villages. For example, would the occupier of a social house built in these circumstances have the right to buy?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are talking about support for social housing principally through housing associations. Therefore, in those circumstances the housing association would have to be prepared to sell in order for a person to have the right to buy. We are discussing the provision of social housing and the encouragement that is required to build cheaper housing in order to keep younger people and key workers in particular in villages where the pressure on prices puts housing out of their reach. That is the case both in terms of rented accommodation, for which people would go through the social housing route, and in terms of smaller, more affordable owner-occupied housing.
	With regard to the noble Earl's first point, the question of how far the decline in farming incomes affects the prosperity of a rural area as a whole obviously varies from one country area to another. Total incomes in rural areas have been more buoyant than has been the case in urban areas. The problem is that there is both a geographical difference between areas and, in some cases, a polarisation between people who have done well and are living in the country on relatively high incomes--possibly working in the town or running their own businesses--and those who in recent years have suffered a decline in their agriculture-based income.
	It is also true that agriculture accounts for only approximately 4 per cent of GDP in rural areas. In some cases that figure is 16 per cent or so, but not higher. Therefore, 80 per cent or more of the population is employed in industries other than agriculture, even if some of those industries are partly dependent on the buoyancy or otherwise of agriculture. Therefore, the pattern is mixed. There is considerable prosperity and economic success in rural areas as well as a decline in many sectors of farming.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would answer two questions in relation to market towns, which he rightly identified as crucial focal points for rural communities. First, does the White Paper mention (because the Minister did not) the importance to the pride and self-determination of market towns and their hinterlands of the maintenance of local courts--county courts and magistrates' courts--which are being closed in unprecedented numbers? If it does not, would the Minister none the less give consideration to and become involved in some joined-up policy on that matter?
	My second point concerns local voluntary organisations. Self-help is the key to any long-term revival of market towns. I note the fact that there are over 100,000 amateur sports clubs in this country, the majority of which are in market towns and villages. None of them has charitable status, whereas other forms of local organisation, such as horticultural societies, archaeological societies, scouts, guides, choral societies and most others, have charitable status and the benefits that come from that. Does the White Paper mention the need for local amateur sports clubs, which are so important to the local social cement, to be given, if not charitable status, the benefits in tax terms of charitable status?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's last point, I do not believe that we deal with the charitable status of sports clubs. We refer specifically to the need for support and encouragement for rural voluntary activity. The noble Lord is right that the self-image of many market towns and other rural communities depends on the level of commitment and activity in rural areas.
	With regard to the specific point about magistrates' courts, I believe that the noble Lord will find in the White Paper a table--which at present I cannot locate--which indicates that one of the facilities in larger market towns should be a magistrates' court.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to give an unqualified welcome to the totality of the White Paper. There is no doubt that it seeks to put right the deprivation which exists. I was taken by the part of the report which refers to the fact that farm incomes have fallen by 60 per cent over five years. Many families cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up.
	I should not like to accuse noble Lords of collective amnesia. However, when Members on the Opposition Front Bench rightly point out that there is a lack of affordable housing, do they not remember that years ago their government gave the residents of rural communities the right to buy their council houses? As a result, there is an absence of council housing and, thus, in many communities no affordable housing. I believe that Members opposite should reflect before they criticise this Government's policy.
	The other part of the report puts that right. It talks in terms of doubling the grant to the Housing Corporation. For five years until 1997 the grant to the Housing Corporation progressively decreased. The report refers to 3,000 houses which are to be ear-marked as starter homes. Therefore, the Government have nothing to be ashamed about in their attempt to put the situation right, especially with regard to rural transport. I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time. I believe that the White Paper is all good stuff.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that endorsement. He is certainly right that we are almost doubling the resources to the Housing Corporation. It is important that we learn from past problems of mismatch of supply and demand in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordable housing. The resources for the Housing Corporation and housing associations go some way to meet that.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that without a revival in the wealth-creating industries in rural areas--agriculture, forestry and so on--the rural population cannot possibly be sustained? Therefore, many of the schemes advanced in the White Paper will become peripheral, if not inoperable. I am thinking of the transport schemes. Bearing that in mind I have a key question. Does the Minister believe that the Government have right the balance of the distribution of resources? Would it not be better to concentrate on supporting and nourishing those wealth-creating industries in rural areas?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly the future of the countryside in part depends on the revival of agriculture and its ability to make the changes required of it. The very large sums of money which the Government and the EU have put into rural areas to support agriculture and the new provisions which were announced earlier this year and those in relation to support for diversification for farming incomes are an important part of that. Agriculture must change but, as the noble Lord said, it is absolutely key to the future.
	The only point I make, which I made earlier, is that there are, and will increasingly be, many other entrepreneurial successes in the countryside which already provide positive prosperity and employment for our rural citizens. Therefore, while it is vital that we continue to support agriculture, forestry and so on, those other industries also require encouragement.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that as the policies are announced and the commitments realised, this White Paper will come to be seen as a historic landmark which is perhaps deserving of rather more time than is available today? In particular, I commend the environmental interest which was illustrated also by the announcement on field boundaries, which has not yet been appreciated by the House.
	I welcome my noble friend's comment about brownfield sites as an alternative to greenfield sites. That is highly desirable. But would it not be possible for the department to ensure that where achievement is either under way or already attained in regard to brownfield development, more and more attention is given to the possibilities which such development can provide?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. The development of brownfield sites must be part of the diversification of the rural economy. We have a lot to learn from the successful innovations which have already taken place in many of our rural areas.

Lord Walpole: My Lords, I wish to make two comments in relation to transport. Research by the University of East Anglia over 30 years ago showed that the motor car was the ideal method of transport for travelling around rural areas. But now, of course, there are far too many cars running round the roads in rural areas which are totally unable to stand that amount of traffic because they were never designed for it. Therefore, workers in rural areas take their cars to drive to work. Villages then become bereft of cars. People then find themselves stranded in villages and that is when car-sharing comes into the picture.
	I wish that I had seen a copy of this White Paper a lot earlier. I am interested in trains and not only in ensuring that trains run. Obviously, they do not always compete directly with buses. I believe that in Norfolk, we should re-open some of those lines which Dr Beeching manged to close. If that is done, an enormous amount of transport is taken off the roads. I am involved with people who are doing that at the moment. Many heavy goods vehicles can be taken off the roads, especially those transporting sugar beet.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no doubt that in some cases an extension of the rural train service would be possible and would meet some of those needs. But more important is the provision of rural bus services and what are regarded as more flexible, on-demand services, somewhere between a taxi and a bus, which will meet most of the demands of rural dwellers.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister admit that agriculture has a part to play in the countryside. I am sorry to hear him go on again about diversification because people must produce potatoes, milk and fruit. It is primarily the marketing with which the producers need help. I did not hear any word about that in the Statement. Marketing has broken down since the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board, and with the curtailment of the Milk Marque, prices have dropped by over 20 per cent. Is that not a cause for alarm?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Statement recognises the need for local markets to be revived and for there to be an increase in the number of local markets. Better distribution facilities need to be provided for farmers. It is certainly the case that agriculture requires a distribution network and a system which is more appropriate to the needs of agriculture.
	But I fear that a revival of the old-style marketing boards is not on the agenda and would not be appropriate for the agricultural and food policies of today.

Freedom of Information Bill

Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past six o'clock.